Disposed

Jagdish Chauhan and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2019CRLP/8547/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash an FIR alleging offences under Sections 406, 419, 420 IPC, but directed that petitioners not be arrested pending the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Petitioners were directed to cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

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

Jagdish Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8547 of 2019 Petitioner :- Jagdish Chauhan And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Priya Singh,Nawal Kishore Deo Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

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

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) 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. 292 of 2017, under Sections 406, 419,420, 467, 468, 471 IPC PS Robertsganj District Sonebhadra.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; petitioners have not been named in the FIR; the persons who were named in the FIR have already been arrested and obtained bail; reliance has been placed on the order of co-accused Manorma Devi dated 23.5.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.13316 of 2018; 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.

¶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

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties 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 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 cooperate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 5.4.2019 SP

Jagdish Chauhan and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Chauhan and Another 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Riyaz Ahmad Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Rekha Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mehdi Husain Samin Rizvi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hariom Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gulshan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others