Disposed

Kushum Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2020CRLP/6958/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR, holding that criminal intent must be determined during investigation. However, granting temporary protection from arrest provided the petitioners cooperate with the investigation and submit money documents until the police report is filed.

What did the court decide?

Protection from arrest granted until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., conditional upon cooperation and document submission.

Kushum Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6958 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Kushum Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mir Sayed Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shailendra Kumar Ojha

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1 and 2, Sri S.S. Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shailendra Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 01.01.2020 registered as Case Crime No.02 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506, 120B I.P.C. at Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶7

The allegations in the impugned first information report is in respect of non payment of money advanced by the informant to the accused for decent return because the accused were awarded ' Mining Theka '. The allegation is that only part amount, namely Rs.1,90,000/- was returned whereas Rs.28,65,000/- is still outstanding.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation that only part amount was returned is not correct and that money was returned. More over, the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature and, therefore, lodging of the first information report would not be justified.

¶9

Be that as it may, whether the petitioner had repaid the entire amount and, if not, whether the petitioner had dishonest intention from the very beginning is a matter which could be determined on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation and the evidence led in trial, therefore, at this stage, it would not be appropriate for us to express any opinion whether the dispute between the party is purely of civil nature or a criminal offence has been committed.

¶10

Under the circumstances, the prayer to quash the first informant report cannot be accepted. However, as the learned counsel for the informant admits that only part payment of the money was made to the informant, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this

¶11

petition by providing that investigation of the case shall continue and brought to its logical conclusion but till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. the petitioners shall not be arrested, provided they co-operate in the investigation and make themselves available as and when required for interrogation as also for providing documents in respect of the payment of money.

¶12

It is made clear that if the petitioners fail to co-operate in the investigation, this protection shall stand automatically discharged.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.8.2020 Rahul.

Kushum Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kushum Singh and Another 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

Saira and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay R-Mishra @ Babaloo Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Shekh Afroz and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Seeta Pal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakesh Kumar Pandey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jay Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others