Disposed

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

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2022CRLP/14371/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR upon the petitioners submitting a sale deed of the disputed land. The Court held that the grievance no longer survived. It restrained the respondents from arresting the petitioners for two months and directed the I.O. to proceed expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed. No useful purpose in keeping it pending. Respondents restrained from arresting petitioners for two months while cooperating in investigation.

Harendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14371 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Harendra Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyam Narayan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.P.Singh, learned A.G.A.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 22.7.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 439 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 506 IPC, Police Station- Sardhana, District- Meerut (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition).

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest or harass the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report."

¶9

While pressing the interim relief on 12.10.2022, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a submission admittedly in the present matter, sale deed has already been executed as such the grievance of the informant no more survives. Only on account of the said submission, the matter was adjourned.

¶10

Today, learned counsel for the petitioners files a supplementary affidavit bringing on record a copy of the sale deed of the land in dispute. As such, it is contended that the pending proceedings would serve no purpose and the same are liable to be quashed in the light of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , 2012(10) SCC 303.

¶11

In the facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending for consideration and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the I.O. concerned to proceed expeditiously strictly in accordance with law taking into account the aforesaid sale deed as well as in the light of aforesaid judgement.

¶12

For a period of two months, respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR subject to cooperation in the on-going investigation.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.11.2022 A.K.Srivastava

¶14

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.11.19 14:11:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zakir Hussain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Jagdamba Prasad Tiwari and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sharook Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Julfikar Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Nath Gupta Vs State of U P and 5 Others