Disposed¶13

Rajan Garg and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2020CRLP/10440/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused where prima facie cognizable offence made out; Case Crime No. 489 of 2018; Sections 354 (ka) and 509 IPC; obscene behaviour, acts, words and gestures against informant; protection from arrest; no arrest till police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.; co-operation with investigation; P.S. NOIDA Sector-58; District Gautam Budh Nagar; Rajan Garg and 8 Others v. State of U.P.; CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 10440 of 2020; disposed of on 13.10.2020.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the F.I.R. refused; however, the petitioners were directed not to be arrested in Case Crime No. 489 of 2018 till submission of the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to their co-operating with the investigation and appearing as and when called upon to assist in the investigation. ¶13

Rajan Garg and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the F.I.R. dated 10.08.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 489 of 2018 under Sections 354 (ka) and 509 I.P.C., Police Station NOIDA Sector-58, District Gautam Budh Nagar, should be quashed. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

On perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences are made out at this stage against the petitioners; the Court finds no cogent reason to quash the first information report and refuses the prayer for quashing it.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the submissions advanced for the petitioners, the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to their co-operating with the investigation and appearing as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of F.I.R. dated 10.08.2018 (Case Crime No. 489 of 2018) under Sections 354 (ka) and 509 I.P.C., Police Station NOIDA Sector-58, District Gautam Budh Nagar, alleging obscene behaviour against the informant/respondent no.4, together with a prayer for protection from arrest. Held: on perusal of the F.I.R., a prima facie cognizable offence was made out at that stage against the petitioners, and the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. was refused. However, in the facts and circumstances and on the submissions advanced for the petitioners, it was directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till submission of the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to their co-operating with the investigation and appearing as and when called upon to assist. Petition finally disposed of (Order dated 13.10.2020).

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10440 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajan Garg And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sameer Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The petitioners in the present writ petition are seeking quashing of the F.I.R. dated 10.08.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 489 of 2018, under Sections 354 (ka) and 509 I.P.C. Police Station NOIDA Sector-58, District Gautam Budh Nagar with a further prayer not to arrest him in pursuance of the said first information report.

¶7

The allegation in the First Information Report is that the persons mentioned therein by their acts or gestures and words are said to have committed obscene behaviour against the informant/ respondent no.4.

¶8

Sri Sagir Ahmed, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Sameer Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no specific allegation has been made against the petitioners and further there is no obscene acts, words or gestures have been attributed to them.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶10

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioners, therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first

¶11

information report is refused.

¶12

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that he shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 13.10.2020 C. MANI

Rajan Garg and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Garg and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kasturi Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Nagma and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Ankush Jindal and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vijay Singh Yadav @ Gauri Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Surendra Lal Vs State of U P and 3 Others