Partly allowed

Gajei Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2019CRLP/9293/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash an FIR alleging assault and outraging modesty. However, it directed that the petitioner not be arrested pending the submission of the police report while requiring cooperation and setting a three-month deadline for investigation completion.

What did the court decide?

Directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested till submission of Police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; investigation to be concluded within three months.

Gajei Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9293 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Gajei Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohit Kumar Singh,Sujata Choudhary Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikas Sharma

¶4

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

¶5

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today by the petitioner, bringing on record the injury report, which is taken on record. Shri Vikas Sharma has also passed on to the Court Photocopy of the injury report, which is also taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Mohit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and the learned A.G.A. for the State - respondent.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned F. I. R. dated 23.03.2019, registered as Case Crime No. 146 of 2019, under Sections 323, 326, 354-B & 452 IPC, Police Station - Nauchandi, District - Meerut.

¶8

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.

¶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

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.

¶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, 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.

¶12

Order Date :- 15.4.2019/Amit Mishra

Gajei Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajei Singh 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

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

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

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

Amalendu Mukherjee Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S J K G Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U P and 4 Others