Dismissed

Manoj Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2020CRLP/6925/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash a criminal FIR but directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., provided they cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Directing that petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. provided they cooperate with investigation.

Manoj Kumar Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6925 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Yadav And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kesh,Deo Prakash Singh 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 the learned A.G.A. 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 27.03.2016 registered as Case Crime No. 383 of 2016 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Sahar, District Mirzapur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no. 3 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing them. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime and hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the F.I.R. cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation. With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 8.7.2020 VR/

Manoj Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Yadav and 3 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

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