Dismissed

Rubi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jun 2023CRLP/7332/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed by Rubi and another seeking quashing of an FIR and a command not to arrest them. The court held no case was made out for interference as investigation was pending under the 2019 circular.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioners left open to apply for anticipatory bail/bail in competent court.

Rubi and Another Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:128680-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7332 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Rubi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Rai,Priya Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent.

¶7

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

¶8

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 04.03.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 0058 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Eka, District- Firozabad (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition).

¶9

(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."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on false/vexatious/mischievous allegations and no offences are made out against the petitioners.

¶11

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence.

¶12

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)-20-2018 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.

¶13

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

¶14

accordance with law.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 26.6.2023 A.K.Srivastava

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rubi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubi and Another 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

Sagun Shyron @ Sagun Chaudhary and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Laxman Sahgal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Km. Usha Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others