Partly allowed

Virendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2020CRLP/3166/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR regarding offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC, finding no fit case for interference due to alleged injuries. An order deferred arrest for one student petitioner pending the final police report.

What did the court decide?

Protection from arrest granted pending police report to petitioner no. 4 only; no such protection for others. Writ petition disposed of.

Virendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3166 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Virendra And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Singh Somvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted permission to make correction in the description in the array of parties of writ petition and the stay application accompanying the writ petition.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A.

¶7

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned first information report dated 05.01.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 0002 of 2020 under Section 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2015) Police Station Magorra, District Mathura as also for direction to the opposite parties not to arrest them in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.

¶8

The allegations in the first information report are that while the first informant along with his family members were celebrating the birthday party of his grandson, without any provocation, the petitioners entered into his house, objected to playing of D.J. and started beating them with 'lathi' and 'iron rod' in which he and his family members sustained grievous injuries on their heads, hands and legs.

¶9

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the alleged offence due to village 'party-bandi'.

¶10

Looking to the allegations in the first information report and the injuries sustained by the first informant and his family members, we do not find it a fit case for interference.

¶11

However, at this stage, it is contended by learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 4 is a student of Class-XII and is appearing in the Intermediate examination, which has started on 18.02.2020. In case, he is arrested then his future career will be in jeopardy.

¶12

Looking to the status of the petitioner no. 4, it is provided that he shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶13

However, the said protection would not available with regard to the petitioner no. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 who shall be under obligation to co-operate in the investigation and the investigating agency would be free to take any action against him in accordance with law.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.3.2020 nd

Virendra and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra and 2 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Vishwakarma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suman Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Trishul Nath Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lal Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shiv Shankar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kuldeep Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others