Dismissed

Ramesh Chandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2024CRLP/2379/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR and seeking a stay on arrest, the High Court granted an interim order staying arrest pending sufficient evidence, directing the petitioner to record a statement within one month.

What did the court decide?

Stay on arrest granted pending recording of statement by petitioner within one month.

Ramesh Chandra vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27719-DB

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2379 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Niwas Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. and perused the records.

¶7

Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶8

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 11.10.2023 registered at FIR/Case Crime No. 0035/2023, Under Section 409 IPC at Police Station S.I.T, District State STI, U.P., (so far it relates with the petitioner), as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this Writ petition.

¶9

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report dated 11.10.2023 registered at FIR/Case Crime No. 0035/2023, Under Section 409 IPC at Police Station S.I.T, District State SIT, U.P., Lucknow, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this Writ petition."

¶10

The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that there is no evidence regarding commission of any offence by the petitioner nor that he is responsible for the missing records, in fact, he had not been handed over the charge of the post which he took over at the relevant time. His implication is merely on suspicion without there being anything tangible, in the form of any evidence, regarding petitioner's complicity.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. already represents the official of opposite parties including the informant.

¶12

Looking into the fact that the petitioner has retired from the service in 2006 and he is 78 years of age and also in view of the

¶13

submissions recorded here-in-above but without drawing any conclusive opinion, we are of the opinion that unless sufficient and cogent evidence available against the petitioner regarding his complicity in the alleged crime he shall not be arrested in pursuance of the FIR impugned herein.

¶14

Petitioner shall, however, get his statement recorded before the investigating officer, within one month, If he does not do so then the Investigating Officer shall file an affidavit seeking vacation of the interim order.

¶15

Pleadings may be exchanged within eight weeks.

¶16

List thereafter.

¶17

(Narendra Kumar Johari,J.) (Vivek Chaudhary,J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 4.4.2024 Arjun/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ARJUN PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramesh Chandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Radhey Shyam and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Others

Pramod Kumar Gupta @ Pramod Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Mr. Ram Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Annexy Bhawan Lko. and Others

Ravendra Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Om Prakash Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Nitin Tiwari and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Others