Dismissed

Sameer Tyagi and 4 Others v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2020CRLP/2365/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for non-arrest and quashing of an FIR. Noting that petitioners failed to deposit the stipulated amount in the mediation centre, which qualified the matter for alternative remedies, the court dismissed the petition and reserved the substantive contentions for a later appropriate proceeding.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sameer Tyagi and 4 Others Vs the State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2365 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Sameer Tyagi And 4 Others Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Dhama

¶4

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

¶5

It is not disputed by the petitioners that in compliance to the order dated 10.2.2020, petitioners have not deposited the stipulated amount before the Mediation Centre of this Court.

¶6

Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent concerned, not to arrest the petitioners, with a further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 19.1.2020, registered as Case Crime No.0030/2020, under Sections 498A/307/323/504/506 IPC and 3/4 of the D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, Ghaziabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that FIR has been lodged on false / vexatious / mischievous allegations, no offences are made out, FIR be quashed.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the submission.

¶10

The correctness of the allegations would have to be tested on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation as by insertion of notification No.108/69-V-1-19-1 (Ka)-20-2018 dated 6th June 2019, an alternate remedy is available to the petitioners to seek for an anticipatory bail/bail as he may be advised.

¶11

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶12

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶13

Office to proceed.

¶14

It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised which are left open for the petitioners to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.

¶15

The party shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner / s alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card).

¶16

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.12.2020 Chandra

Sameer Tyagi and 4 Others v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sameer Tyagi and 4 Others v. the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ankur Kumar @ Golu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hanif and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others