Disposed¶13

Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2020CRLP/3282/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR quashing writ petition; Sections 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC; Case Crime No. 0040 of 2020; P.S. Highway, District Mathura; plot dispute; sale through power of attorney or registered sale deed; pending civil suit; delay in FIR (incident 04.08.2015, FIR 25.01.2020); prima facie cognizable offence; no arrest till Section 173(2) CrPC police report subject to co-operation with investigation; Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P.; decided 25.2.2020.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the FIR refused; however, the petitioners were directed not to be arrested in Case Crime No. 0040 of 2020 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. ¶13

Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3282 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Shakuntala Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 25.01.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 0040 of 2020 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Highway, District Mathura with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the said first information report.

¶7

As per the the allegations made in the FIR, it appears that the dispute between the parties is with regard to certain plots. The allegation is that the said plots have been sold and purchased either through power of attorney or through registered sale deed fraudulently.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the dispute is purely civil in nature and one civil suit is also pending in respect of the plots in dispute and only to harass the petitioners the present impugned FIR has been lodged containing absolutely false allegations. It is submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.4 only to create pressure upon the petitioners because of pending civil suit. Lastly it is submitted that the incident is alleged to have been taken place on 4.08.2015 and the FIR has been lodged on 25.01.2020. Hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶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 information report is refused.

¶11

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is directed

¶12

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 they 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. Order Date :- 25.2.2020 Kirti

Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Another 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

Devendra Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.

Radhey Mohan Tripathi and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Diwakar Mishra and 42 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Balwan Rajput Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bholu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Upendra Sah Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others