Disposed

Sameek Yadav Alias Sameek Alias Chilli v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2019CRLP/8158/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash an FIR alleging offences under Sections 336, 323, and 427 IPC. Instead, it directed that the petitioner not be arrested until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted, while mandating cooperation with the investigation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition not quashed; direction given that petitioner shall not be arrested till police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted.

Sameek Yadav Alias Sameek Alias Chilli Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8158 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sameek Yadav Alias Sameek Alias Chilli Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 109 of 2018, under Section 336, 323, 427 IPC, P.S.- Tundla, District- Firozabad.

¶7

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; petitioner have been implicated on the basis of general allegation; much reliance has been placed upon paragraph no. 9 onwards of the writ petition; matter requires deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to and the petitioner will participate and co-operate with the investigation; 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.

¶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

¶11

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 preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶12

Order Date :- 2.4.2019 Ujjawal

Sameek Yadav Alias Sameek Alias Chilli v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameek Yadav Alias Sameek Alias Chilli 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Bahadur @ Ram Bahadur and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Indrawati and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others