Pintu Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging the first information report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Court held that despite separate FIRs, no inconsistency existed as both were based on maternal intimation. Directed clubbing of investigations.
What did the court decide?
Impugned FIR not quashed; direction to club both FIRs for composite investigation.
What the court decided
Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1982 of 2022
Petitioner :- Pintu Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siya Ram Verma,Deepak Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Yadvendra Yadav
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Petitioner is permitted to implead Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Zone as respondent no. 5 in the writ petition. Notice on behalf of newly impleaded respondent is accepted by the learned A.G.A.
This petition has been filed challenging the first information report in Case Crime No. 1044 of 2021 under Sections 376, 498-A, 323 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station Chakeri, District Purvi (Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar), which contains allegations with regard to commissioning of offence under Sections 376 and 498-A IPC etc. against the petitioners. The first information report refers to an incident dated 20.9.2020 at about 4.00 p.m.within the limits of Police Station Chakeri District Kanpur Nagar.
The ground of challenge to the aforesaid first information report is that the mother of the informant, in the impugned first information report, has also lodged a separate first information report in case Crime No. 743 of 2020, under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Akbarpur, District Ramabai Nagar, wherein the incident is shown to have occurred at 5.00 p.m., on the same date at a different location in a adjoining district. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in case Crime No. 743 of 2020, there is no allegation of offence under Section 376 IPC and two distinct offences cannot be committed by the same accused, at two different locations at the same time and that the investigation has otherwise concluded in that case with submission of chargesheet to the higher officer.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether two first information reports about the same incident lodged in different districts at different times indicate inconsistent allegations warranting quashing.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Pintu Singh
- respondent
State Of U.P.
- intervenor
Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Zone
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · March
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLP/1982/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court