Disposed

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

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2020CRLP/4488/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to quash an FIR and prevent arrest. The court refused to quash the FIR as a prima facie case existed but directed that investigation proceed only if petitioners cooperate, with no arrest permitted prior to the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

FIR quashing refused; investigation directed to proceed without arrest of petitioners pending police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Rajnath and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4488 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rajnath And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Gupta

¶3

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri. R.P.Singh learned brief holder for the State.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents concerned, not to arrest the petitioners, with a further prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R dated 12.1.2020 registered as Case Crime No.16 of 2020, under Sections 354 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station - Phoolpur, District - Varanasi.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is father-in-law of respondent no.3 who is an old man of 83 years. Petitioner no.2 is son of petitioner no.1. Petitioner No.2 lodged an F.I.R. No. 0023 of 2020 at P.S. Phoolpur, Varanasi against husband of respondent no.3 and others under Sections 147,323,504 and 506 I.P.C. Petitioner no.3 was injured in the assault and was medically examined. Impugned F.I.R. is lodged as a counterblast on 12.1.2020 on false averments. No case is made out and the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶7

Per contra, the learned A.G.A has opposed the submission.

¶8

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned FIR as well as the other material brought on record, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioners. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.

¶9

However, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but 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 their cooperation during investigation.

¶10

Order Date :- 6.3.2020 Rishabh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnath and 2 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajni Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Mangal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rani Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Naseem Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Babu Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Raju @ Hashim Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others