Disposed

Professor Royana Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2019CRLP/9664/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash an FIR against the Petitioner, a Chief Proctor, in a conspiracy charge. However, it directed that the Petitioner not be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., pending cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Directed that investigation shall go on but petitioner shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Professor Royana Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 53 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9664 of 2019 Petitioner :- Professor Royana Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Tiwary,Avneesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rakesh Pande

¶2

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶4

Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel for the informant, Sri A.N. Mulla, learned A.G.A.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 3.4.2019 registered as Case Crime No.429 of 2018 under sections 147, 148, 149, 120-B, 302, 34 of I.P.C. 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act P.S.Lanka District Varanasi.

¶6

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that she is Chief Proctor in the Banaras Hindu University, statutorily responsible for maintaining law and order in the campus, allegations relating to the alleged conspiracy on the part of the petitioner are malafidely motivated, she has no concern either with the victim or accused who were suspended students of the University, unfortunate occurrence was an outcome of rivalary between two gangs, alleged criminal history of two cases were also registered in discharge of official duties, no offence is made out, F.I.R. be quashed.

¶7

Per contra learned A.G.A. and Sri Pande, learned counsel for the informant submitted that from the perusal of the impugned F.I.R, and on the basis of the allegations made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioner.

¶8

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned F.I.R, we are not inclined to quash the same.

¶9

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, subject to their extending full co-operation during investigation.

¶10

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 23.4.2019/Ram Murti

Professor Royana Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Professor Royana 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishak and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anoop Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arshad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Faim Ahmad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Mohammad Waseem @ Guddu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others