Partly allowed

Vijay Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2019CRLP/954/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the High Court declined to quash an FIR alleging offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 67 IT Act. While dismissing the quash prayer, the Court directed that petitioners not be arrested pending the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, provided they cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners not to be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC; directed police to complete investigation within three months.

Vijay Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 954 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shailesh Kumar Shukla

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A. for the State. Sri Shailesh Kumar Shukla has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.4.

¶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.1446 of 2018, under Sections 376 I.P.C. and 67 I.T.Act, P.S. Devband, District Saharanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioners; contention is that even though both the petitioners have been named in the first information report but the victim happens to be the niece of the Uncle of the wife of the petitioners; further contention is that there is some monetary dispute between the parties as a result of which the present proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners; much reliance has been placed on the averments made in paragraph nos.6, 7, 8 and 11 of the writ petition; 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, Sri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and learned A. G. A. have jointly 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 petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., however, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to complete the investigation as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶11

Order Date :- 17.1.2019

¶12

R./

Vijay Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Divya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tanu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abdul Mabood and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Uday Sarup Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pooja and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arshad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others