Dismissed

Netrapal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2020CRLP/10998/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under sections 306 and 120-B IPC. The petitioner argued false allegations of abetting suicide. The court held that no cognizable offence was ex-facie non-existent and dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR and staying the arrest of the petitioner was dismissed.

Netrapal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10998 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Netrapal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGA and perused the impugned F.I.R, as well as material brought on record.

¶6

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R, dated 25.4.2020 registered as Case Crime No.109 of 2020, under sections 306 and 120-B IPC, P.S. Dandon, District Aligarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that informant/respondent No.4 lodged the impugned FIR under Sections 376-D, 306 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, against two named accused alleging that they committed gang rape with his minor daughter, as some villagers and other persons of his community initially desisted the informant to lodge an FIR and assured him that the accused would be punished in the Panchayat, he did not lodge the FIR earlier subsequently faces of accused were blackened by his daughter in the Panchayat but his daughter on account of embarrasment committed suicide. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner in the impugned FIR, his name

¶8

surfaced during investigation that he abetted the victim to commit suicide as also hatched conspiracy to shield the accused, allegations are false and baseless, the Panchayat took place at the instance of informant, there is nothing to indicate that victim was abetted by the petitioner to commit suicide.

¶9

Learned A.G.A, opposed the submission on the ground that that during investigation it has come that Panchayat took place at the house of petitioner, the role of petitioner cannot be ruled out at this stage as the matter is still under investigation and the matter is heinous.

¶10

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.

¶11

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R or staying the arrest of the petitioner.

¶12

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 14.12.2020 / A.N. Mishra

¶14

Digitally signed by Justice Pankaj Digitally signed by Justice Vivek Naqvi Agarwal Date: 2020.12.18 12:59:48 IST Date: 2020.12.18 13:10:24 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad

Netrapal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Netrapal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arpit Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Satyam Singh @ Satyam Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Danish and 6 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Baburam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sudhir Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.