Disposed

Deepa Katiyar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Aug 2020CRLP/8140/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed exemption from filing certified FIR copy. Court disposed of quash petition directing that arrest is permissible only if forensic verification confirms degree tampering, without staying ongoing investigation.

What did the court decide?

Exemption from filing certified FIR copy allowed. Petition disposed with direction regarding future arrest conditions pending document verification by senior police officer.

Deepa Katiyar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8140 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Deepa Katiyar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he could not file the certified copy of the impugned F.I.R. and prays for exemption. The exemption application is allowed.

¶6

Heard Sri M.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Archana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 27.2.2020, registered as Case Crime No.43 of 2020, under Sections 409, 420, 464, 467, 468, 471, 204 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sikendra, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶8

The allegation against the petitioner is that he obtained a forged B.Ed. degree from Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra in the year 2004-05 and based on the same obtained a public employment initially as an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the services of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that the B.Ed. degree of the petitioner were tampered one, which was challenged by the petitioner and other similarly situated persons in which their termination has been stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims parity with the order dated 16.12.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.24963/2019.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed the submission on the premise that prima facie a cognizable offence is made out, no interference is required to be made. He has further drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 25.6.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.6326 of 2020.

¶11

We are of the considered view that ends of justice would be served if this petition is disposed of with the direction that in the event the degree in question is verified to be a tampered /forged/fabricated document, it would

¶12

be open for the Investigating authorities to arrest the petitioner.

¶13

We further clarify that above verification would be done by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police and that we have not stayed the ongoing investigation.

¶14

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

¶15

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶16

(Ajit Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 26.8.2020 NS

Deepa Katiyar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepa Katiyar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kajal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kajal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Reema Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surekha Yadav and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Savita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others