Disposed¶11

Yogendra Pratap Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2020CRLP/1118/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashment of FIR refused; protection from coercive action during investigation. Keywords: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition 1118 of 2020; FIR dated 7.10.2019; Crime No. 938 of 2019; P.S. Cantt., District Gorakhpur; Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC; Will of Purni Devi; conflicting dates of death; no coercive action till charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; cooperation in investigation condition; Yogendra Pratap Yadav; State of U.P.; order dated 4.2.2020.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashment of the FIR declined; petition finally disposed of with a direction that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners in respect of Crime No. 938 of 2019 till submission of the charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the order remaining effective till the petitioners cooperate in the investigation. ¶11

Yogendra Pratap Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1118 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Yogendra Pratap Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Krishna Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Adya Prasad Tewari,Sheo Shankar Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Sri R K Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R L Dwivedi, learned State Counsel for the State and Sri A P Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, seeking quashment of FIR dated 7.10.2019 in respect of Crime No.938 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Gorakhpur.

¶7

According to petitioners, Purni Devi died on 12.4.2019 and before that, she executed her Will on 26/28.3.2019, whereas according to prosecution, Purni Devi died on 31.10.2016.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute in question, is purely of civil in nature, where ultimately validity of the Will has to be established before the competent Court. He submits that the deceased was residing with the petitioners and it is the petitioners who performed her all the rituals, but all of a sudden, to grab the property of the deceased, the complainant has made false allegations against the petitioners.

¶9

Learned AGA opposes the petition.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, we are not inclined to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶11

However, we finally dispose of this petition with a direction to the State authorities that no coercive action shall be taken

¶12

against the petitioners in respect of above stated crime number till the submission of charge sheet under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. before the court concerned.

¶13

It is made clear that this order would remain effective till the petitioners cooperate in the investigation. Order Date :- 4.2.2020 RKK/-

Yogendra Pratap Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Pratap Yadav and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Ajeej Khan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Chandrapal and 3 Ors.

Mayank Singhal Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Shanti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Sanoj Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others