Dismissed

Vivek Singh Siddharth and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2022CRLP/618/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the petitioner sought quashing of an FIR involving matrimonial offences. The mediation attempt failed due to the informant's personal reasons and demands for exorbitant money. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding FIR quashing in matrimonial cases, the High Court held that mediation failure is not a ground for quashing the FIR, which prima faci

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without adjudicating mediation failure contentions; bail application left open.

Vivek Singh Siddharth and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 618 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Vivek Singh Siddharth And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Balwant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Hari Narayan Singh

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the first information report dated 11.11.2021 in Case Crime No. 0479 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 377, 354, and I.P.C. and Section, 3/4 of the DP Act, Police StationMahila Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur.

¶7

On the matter being taken up on 3.2.2022, while according interim protection to the petitioners, the matter has been referred to the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. In response to the said order a report dated 27.5.2022 has been sent by the Mediation Centre indicating that mediation could not succeed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that inspite of best endeavour by the petitioners the mediation could not succeed as the informant was bent upon not to reconcile the matter and asked for very exorbitant money for settling the dispute, which was beyond their reach. Entire family of the petitioners have been implicated in this case.

¶9

Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. The correctness of the allegations would have to be tested on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation as by insertion of notification No.1058/79-V-1-19-1 (Ka)-202018 dated 6th June 2019 and therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others , 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.

¶10

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in

¶11

accordance with law.

¶12

It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the same are left open for the petitioner to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.10.2022 n.u.

¶14

Digitally signed by NASEEM UDDIN Date: 2022.10.18 10:37:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vivek Singh Siddharth and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Singh Siddharth and 4 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurjeet Singh Chawla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shyam Vishwakarma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ratnesh Urf Chhotalli Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tinku @ Ajay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rohit Singh @ Arvindra Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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