Partly allowed

Bramhdev Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2020CRLP/6583/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the prayer to quash the F.I.R. featuring allegations of penalty cheats as offences under the Indian Penal Code are made out prima facie. However, the petitioners were granted an interim direction to avoid arrest pending the police report submission.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing FIR is refused. Interim direction issued refusing arrest of petitioners till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation.

Bramhdev Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6583 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Bramhdev Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav,Shri Ram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the first information report dated 27.3.2016 registered as Case Crime No. 0383 of 2016, under Sections 471, 468, 467, 419, 420 I.P.C., police station Kotwali City, district Mirzapur.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first information report was initially registered on 27.3.2016 against as many as 207 persons including the petitioners. However, the petitioners were not aware about their complicity with respect to submission of fake documents in the form of vacancy of Assistant Teachers in the year 2014. The complete copy of the first information report has been appended with the supplementary affidavit. The petitioners are absolutely innocent and have not committed any such offence, hence the first information report deserves to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the f i rst information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufcient opportunity to rebut the fi allegations.

¶9

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

¶10

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of

¶11

the petitioners, 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 the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 9.7.2020 Shahnawaz

Bramhdev Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bramhdev Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Chhotey and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devang Tayal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pramod Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Laik Kureshi @ Laik Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akeel and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others