Disposed

Doodhnath Yadav and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2020CRLP/8318/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ to quash an FIR and prevent arrest. The High Court allowed exemption from filing the FIR copy and directed that petitioners not be arrested until the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted, requiring cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed not to be arrested till submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C., with cooperation to investigation.

Doodhnath Yadav and 9 Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8318 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Doodhnath Yadav And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Saroj,Sunil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶7

By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report dated 4.7.2020 registered as Case Crime No.0129 of 2020, under sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 188, 269 and 270 IPC, P.S. Suriyawan, District Bhadohi and not to arrest or harass the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there appears to be dispute between the petitioners and respondent no.4 on trivial issue, hence the present F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioners. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless, hence present FIR lodged against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses cognizable offence.

¶10

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and nature of the allegations, it is directed that the petitioners, namely, Doodhnath Yadav, Prasiddhi @ Mahabali Yadav, Ramesh Yadav, Dinesh Yadav, Santosh, Dharmu @ Dharmraj Yadav, Raju, Aman, Parmendra and Saroj Yadav @ Manoj Yadav , shall not be arrested in the above mentioned case, till the submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. , if any, before the competent Court, but shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶11

With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶13

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 27.8.2020 Tamang

Doodhnath Yadav and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doodhnath Yadav and 9 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

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

Ashish Singraur Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Changez Rana Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others