Disposed

Bal Chandra Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2019CRLP/38169/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash an FIR involving corruption and cheating charges. Despite petitioner claims of false allegations and retirement, the court directed that the petitioner not be arrested until the police report is submitted, while requiring cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction that petitioner shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Bal Chandra Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 38169 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bal Chandra Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiva Kant Srivastava,Pradeep Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

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

¶4

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

¶5

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.2084 of 2007, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B I.P.C. & Section 13(1)C/2 Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Deoria.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner; petitioners have been implicated on the basis of general allegation; further contention is that the petitioner is a retired Police Constable and he has retired on 31.12.2010 from the service itself; the first information report itself pertains to year 2007 (28.10.2007); it has been further been informed that the petitioner was not named in the first information report and it was only subsequently that in the investigation his name cropped up and he is being implicated in the present case; the further contention is that the amount as required to be deposited has already been deposited by him with the Head Cashier; and thus the embezzlement, if any, is on the part of Hari Shankar Tiwari against whom the first information report was lodged; reliance has also been placed on the order passed by another Division Bench of this Court in the matter of co-accused, in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.27062 of 2018, copy of the order has been annexed at page no.60 of the writ petition; 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 petitioners 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.

¶7

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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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 petitioners 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.

¶10

Order Date :- 3.1.2019R./

Bal Chandra Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Chandra Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Fatima Bi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Km. Aashu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vedu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others