Dismissed

Priyanka Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Mar 2020CRLP/3843/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the petitioner challenged the quashing of an FIR alleging forgery and cheating related to insurance policies. The bench observed that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and dismissed the petition, refusing to quash the FIR or stay arrest while allowing a bail application.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for quashing of the FIR and stay of arrest was dismissed. The petitioner is directed to apply for bail in the court below within thirty days.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3843 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Priyanka Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR dated 10.05.2019 registered as Case Crime No.109 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Sikrara, District Jaunpur with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the first information report.

¶7

The allegation in the FIR lodged by the respondent no.3 is that the petitioner has taken two policies of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. bearing Policy No.21867774 on 26.01.2018 and Policy No.21833213 on 17.01.2018 and deposited only one installment of both policies. The husband of the petitioner no.1, namely, Rishabh Mishra is the nominee of the said policies. Thereafter Rishabh Mishra filed death claim of his wife before the concerned bank. When the bank inquired into the matter it was found that Smt. Priyanka Mishra, the holder of policies is alive and death certificate submitted by her husband, Rishabh Mishra is a forged document.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the said policies and at the time of taking said policies she was living in her parental house. He further submitted that apart from bald allegations made in the impugned FIR no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime and hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per Contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶10

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56)ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P ., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569, after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. 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 FIR 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 FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioner.

¶12

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶13

However, it is provided that if the petitioner appears or surrenders before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, her prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.3.2020 N Tiwari

Priyanka Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Indrajeet Sahani and Another Vs State of U.P.

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

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

Atul Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Khushi Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dheeraj Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others