Disposed

Ghanshyam v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2020CRLP/3865/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the quashing of an FIR alleging anti-national activity and terror funding. However, the court restricted the petitioner's arrest and directed the police to complete investigation within three months while the petitioner cooperates.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner restrained from arrest until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; Police to conclude investigation within three months.

Ghanshyam 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. - 3865 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Dutt Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohd. Javed Akhtar

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Chandra Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondents no.1 and 2.

¶6

This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the first information report dated 16.12.2019 registered as Case Crime No.325 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and Section 120-B IPC, Police Station Bahariya, District Prayagraj with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the said FIR.

¶7

The allegation in the impugned First Information Report is with regard to an apprehension of anti- national activity and terror funding due to opening of bank account on the basis of fabricated Aadhar Card.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and is being unnecessarily harassed on the basis of false allegations made against him while prima facie no cognizable offence is made out pursuant to the FIR lodged by the informant. Hence the FIR deserves to be quashed.

¶9

Per Contra, learned AGA has submitted that from 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

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information report as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶11

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2)

¶12

Cr.P.C. However, petitioner shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶13

Order Date :- 5.3.2020 N Tiwari

Ghanshyam v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jhinku Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tejas Verma @ Tejas @ Banti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Rajiv Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nihal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Moijurrab @ Lala and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others