Partly allowed

Smt. Vineeta Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2024CRLP/2424/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2424 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court granted conditional bail and issued notice to respondents to quash an FIR involving cheque bouncing and forgery charges for alleged innocent involvement and property dispute confusion.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners shall not be arrested unless sufficient evidence exists; they must record statements and failure to do so can lead to vacation of the order.

Smt. Vineeta Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2424 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Vineeta Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Srivastava,Vinay Kumar Verma

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

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

¶7

Petitioners approach this Court seeking following relief:

¶8

i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 08.03.2024 bearing FIR No.81/2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Wazirganj, District Lucknow.

¶9

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioners in aforesaid case during pendency of the investigation.

¶10

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner No.1 is the wife of deceased Bharat Singh Mehar and petitioner No.2 is the son of deceased Bharat Singh Mehar, who was original owner of the property in question. There is no allegation that the informant has any concern with the said property. Further allegation is with regard to a Revision filed in the Revenue court after five days of death of her husband/ his father in which name of the deceased father was wrongly mentioned by the lawyer, which was a bonafide mistake.

¶11

Case for consideration is made out.

¶12

Issue notice to respondent no.3 returnable within four weeks.

¶13

Let pleading be exchanged within four weeks.

¶14

List thereafter.

¶15

Considering the submission made, it is provided that the petitioners shall not be arrested on the basis of the impugned First Information Report, unless and until there is sufficient and cogent evidence available against them regarding commission

¶16

¶17

of the offence. They shall get their statement recorded before the Police as and when they are called. If they do not do so, then it can be made a ground for seeking vacation of this interim order.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 5.4.2024 Reena/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Vineeta Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vineeta Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

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

Ramesh Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Abrar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Jaya Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others