Disposed

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

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2019CRLP/728/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the court refused to quash the impugned FIR despite allegations of malice, but granted an exemption allowing the petitioner non-arrest until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Case was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Petitioner directed to cooperate with investigation.

Mohammmad Imran 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. - 728 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohammmad Imran Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Zafar Abbas 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 petitioner 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.691 of 2018, under Sections 109, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. along with Section 13(1) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Kotwali, District Mau.

¶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 petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioner; contention is that the first information report is with regard to the incident dated 18.12.2000, he was not named in the first information report; contention is that the name of the petitioner cropped up during the course of investigation; much reliance has also been placed on the averments made in paragraph nos.7, 16, 22, 24 and 27 of the writ petition; further contention is that he had 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, petitioner shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to complete the investigation as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.1.2019

¶13

R./

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammmad Imran 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

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

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

Sajid Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others