Disposed¶14

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

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2020CRLP/3967/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused; prima facie cognizable offence; protection from arrest till police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; Sections 307/323/395/504/506 IPC; SC/ST Act s.3(2)(v); FIR 0012 of 2020, P.S. Moth, District Jhansi; cross-FIR Case Crime No. 12 of 2020, P.S. Tehrauli; prior Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 2241 of 2020 dismissed 10.2.2020; incident dated 28.1.2020 following DPRO enquiry; alibi plea (petitioners allegedly at Hamirpur, hospitalised 10 a.m.-6 p.m.); State of U.P.; disposed of 5.3.2020.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the F.I.R. refused; however, petitioners directed not to be arrested in the aforesaid case till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to co-operation with the investigation and appearance as and when called upon to assist in the investigation. ¶14

Rajiv Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3967 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajiv Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ruchita Jain Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Narendra Mohan

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

The petitioner in the present writ petition is seeking quashing of the F.I.R. registered as 0012 of 2020 under sections 307, 323, 395, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(v) of the S.C.S.T. Act police station Moth District Jhansi with a further prayer not to arrest them in pursuance of the said first information report.

¶7

The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the informant has made a complaint to the District Magistrate Jhansi on which the District Magistrate ordered the DPRO to enquire into the matter. On 28.1.2020 the DPRO visited the village and inspected the development works. The allegation is that on account of this the petitioners became annoyed and committed marpeet with the informant and when he was going to lodge the F.I.R. he was intercepted by the petitioners who assaulted him with iron rod and country made pistol and also snatched his golden chain and Rs.32,000/-.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the date of the incident i.e. 28.1.2020 the petitioner were at Hamirpur which is about 170 kms. away and they were hospitalized from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. There is no credible evidence against the petitioners and the present impugned F.I.R. has been lodged maliciously with ulterior motive. It is further contended that the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. are wholly false and baseless. Hence, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Shri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submits that there was another FIR lodged by the respondent no. 4 being Case Crime No. 12 of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 427, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(D) and 3(1) (Gha) of S.C./S.T. Act police station Tehrauli District Jhansi against which Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 2241 of 2020 was filed in which it has been stated that both the petitioners Rajeev Kumar and Mayank had come to the rescue of the assaulted

¶10

person. That writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 10.2.2020 by this court. He further submits that Smt. Ruchita Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners herein had appeared for the respondent no. 4 in that writ petition and therefore the claim of the petitioners is falsified that they were admitted in a hospital on the date of the incident.

¶11

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.

¶12

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioner, therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.

¶13

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

¶14

With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 5.3.2020

¶16

o.k.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Kumar 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

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

Ghanshyam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

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