Disposed

Smt. Madhu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2019CRLP/706/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash the FIR regarding offences under IPC Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 but directed that the petitioners not be arrested until the submission of the police report, ordering the police to complete investigation promptly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners not to be arrested till police report submission; directed to cooperate with investigation.

Smt. Madhu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 706 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Madhu And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

The exemption application is allowed.

¶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.0570 of 2018, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Hastinapur, District Meerut.

¶8

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 petitioners; contention is that the main accused Vipin Kumar is not a party in the present writ petition; petitioner no.1 happens to be the wife of Vipin Kumar and has been contended that the alleged accused Vipin Kumar is a married person with three children; much reliance has been placed on the averments made in paragraph nos.8 and 10 of the writ petition; further contention is that the petitioners have no role to play in the controversy; 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 :- 11.1.2019

¶13

R./

Smt. Madhu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Madhu 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

Monu and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mainpal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ayyub Husain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rohit and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohammmad Imran Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sajid Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others