Dismissed

Madusudhan Reddy and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2019CRLP/8021/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court did not quash the impugned F.I.R. filed against the petitioner. Instead, it granted an interim direction restraining the arrest of the petitioner until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC while mandating cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner shall not be arrested pending submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC; directed to cooperate with investigation.

Madusudhan Reddy and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8021 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Madusudhan Reddy And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brahma Nand Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

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. 0652 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 406 and 506 IPC, P.S.- Lanka, District- Varanasi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioner(s); petitioner has been implicated on the basis of general allegation; first informant herself entered into a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding), clause 15 of which itself provides dispute resolution; present dispute is a purely civil dispute to which a clock of criminal liability has been given; 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(s) 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.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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(s) shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., however, petitioner(s) shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to complete the investigation as early as possible.

¶11

Order Date :- 1.4.2019 Kuldeep

Madusudhan Reddy and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madusudhan Reddy and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dablu @ Hari Saran and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Farzan @ Faiyyaz Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surbhi and 7 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sandeep Vaswani and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reena and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nand Kishor and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others