Dismissed

Surya Dutt Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2022CRLP/11266/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR lodged under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The court held that prima facie allegations disclose a cognizable offence and the informant's character is irrelevant. The petition was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right for bail.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; right for bail remains unaffected.

Surya Dutt Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11266 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Surya Dutt Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Nayan Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajeev Nayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.A. on behalf of State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned first information report dated 23.10.2021, which has been lodged through 156(3) Cr.P.C. registered as Case Crime No.167 of 2021, under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur.

¶7

Submission is that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case only with an intent to pressurize him as on perusal of F.I.R., no case is made out in alleged sections. It is purely a civil dispute. It is contended that informant is a promiscuous lady and has fetched conspiracy against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the F.I.R. only on account of immoral character and external affairs with number of persons of the informant.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the contention of counsel for the petitioner and submits that from perusal of F.I.R., cognizable offence is made out and allegations are serious in nature.

¶9

From perusal of the first information report, we do find that a prima facie commissioning of cognizable offence is disclosed. Law is settled that defence of the petitioner in the investigation or trial would ordinarily not be considered for the purposes of quashing of the F.I.R., particularly when allegations constituting commissioning of offence are disclosed. Moreover, we do not find force in the submission of counsel for the petitioner that informant is a promiscuous lady and has fabricated the F.I.R. to harass the petitioner and that cannot be a ground for quashing the police report. The contention that F.I.R. be quashed is misconceived, inasmuch as, the F.I.R. merely discloses commissioning of offence and who is the person responsible for commissioning offence would be determined later.

¶10

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to apply for bail.

¶11

Order Date :- 13.1.2022 Meenu

Surya Dutt Pandey v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Dutt Pandey 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

Naim Quraishi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Savita Mehrotra and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sudheer and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Guddi @ Purushottam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anand Nautiyal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhinave Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others