Partly allowed

Sandeep Pandey Alias Mintu Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2019CRLP/374/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the impugned FIR cannot be quashed as the allegations do not lend themselves to a conclusion that no cognizable offence is made out. However, the petitioner shall not be arrested till the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., while being directed to cooperate with investigations.

What did the court decide?

Direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., while directing cooperation with the investigation.

Sandeep Pandey Alias Mintu Pandey and 2 Others… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 374 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sandeep Pandey Alias Mintu Pandey And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Lal Pandey,Suyash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Avadhesh Pratap Singh,Manjari Sonkar

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Sri Avadhesh Pratap Singh has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.3.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No.0084 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), P.S. Sadat, District Ghazipur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioners; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F. I. R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned A. G. A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F. I. R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶10

After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F. I. R.

¶11

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., however, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to complete the investigation as early as possible.

¶12

Order Date :- 8.1.2019

¶13

R./

Sandeep Pandey Alias Mintu Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Pandey Alias Mintu Pandey and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Ramvilas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Swami Shree Yogi Satyam and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Uma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amit Tiwari @ Guddu Pandit Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others