Disposed

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

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2020CRLP/6918/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash an FIR due to prima facie cognizable offences. However, the Court directed that petitioners shall not be arrested pending submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing was refused. Petitioners directed not to be arrested till police report is submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., provided they cooperate with investigation.

Chhotey and 6 Others Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6918 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Chhotey And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Prakash Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 09.03.2020 registered as Case Crime No.31 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 IPC, Police Station-Anpara, District-Sonbhadra.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are maliciously being prosecuted pursuant to the FIR lodged by respondent no.4. It is submitted that according to the FIR, 12 persons had brutally assaulted with balua, spade, lathi and danda, with an intention to kill, but the FIR itself indicates that no one had sustained any injury. There is great inconsistency in prosecution case, which has been lodged to cause sheer harassment to the petitioners. It is further contended that out of 12 persons, 5 persons were charge sheeted and they had already surrendered and obtained bail. This is a case of no injury. He further submitted that apart from bald allegations made in impugned FIR, no evidence is forthcoming even prima

¶8

facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in commission of the alleged crime, hence, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA contended that the allegations made in the First Information Report cannot be aborted at this stage. Petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶10

From perusal of FIR, prima facie cognizable offence is made out at this stage against the petitioners, therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash the same. The prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.

¶11

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of 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 they shall co-operate with the investigation and 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 :- 8.7.2020 Manish Himwan

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotey and 6 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Anita Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramakant Patel and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kaloo Shivhare Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suraj and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saud Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others