Dismissed

Kripal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2019CRLP/9282/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9282 of 2019 disposed of a petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The court refused to quash the FIR but directed that the petitioner not be arrested until the police submit their investigation report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not to be arrested until submission of Police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; Police to conclude investigation within three months.

Kripal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9282 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kripal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned F. I. R. dated 20.03.2019, registered as Case Crime No. 220 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 504 & 506, IPC, Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Rampur.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant - respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with intention to harass him. It is also submitted that 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.

¶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 report as well as 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 shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of Police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, the petitioner shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and the Police authorities shall conclude the investigation within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶10

Order Date :- 12.4.2019/Amit Mishra

Kripal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kripal Singh 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

Smt. Kanta Bakshi Vs State of U.P. and Others

M/S Mritu Pashu Shav Chhedan Audhyogik Utpadan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kanpur Dehat Eint Nirmata Samiti and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. Labour and Others

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Land Management Committee Gram Arshadpurblock Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shubham Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others