Disposed¶11

Arti Singh Assistant Probation Officer v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2020CRLP/7047/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused; prima facie cognizable offence; interim no-arrest protection till police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; Sections 419, 420, 471 IPC; Case Crime No.127 of 2020; P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Hamirpur; FIR lodged by respondent no.3; petitioner Arti Singh, Assistant Probation Officer; writ petition finally disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the FIR refused; however, the petitioner was granted protection from arrest in Case Crime No.127 of 2020 until submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., conditional on cooperation with the investigation and appearance when called upon. ¶11

Arti Singh Assistant Probation Officer Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7047 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Arti Singh Assistant Probation Officer Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 17.6.2020 registered as Case Crime No.127 of 2020, under Sections 419,420,471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Hamirpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no.3 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing her. 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 petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime and hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioner 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 petitioner, 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 the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner 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 she shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 10.7.2020 M. Tariq

Arti Singh Assistant Probation Officer v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arti Singh Assistant Probation Officer v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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 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