SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Partho Sarkar And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 27 September, 2019


?Court No. – 43

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 22026 of 2019

Petitioner :- Partho Sarkar And 5 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon’ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.

Hon’ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Heard Shri Shailesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent concerned, not to arrest the petitioner, with a further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated dated 24.4.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0082 of 2019 under Sectionsections 377,Section498A,Section354(kha),Section406,Section323,Section504,Section506 I.P.C, and Section 3/4 D.P. Act P.S. Dashashwamedh District Varanasi.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 stands arrested, which is not disputed.

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous qua petitioner no.1.

In so far as petitioner nos. 2 to 6 are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR has been lodged on false / vexatious / mischievious allegations, no offences are made out, FIR be quashed.

Learned AGA has opposed the submission.

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, an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner to seek for an anticipatory bail. We deem it appropriate to dismiss this petition in respect of petitioners nos. 2,3,5 and 6 without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to apply for anticipatory bail.

The writ petition is dismissed as against petitioners 2,3,5 and 6.

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

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner no.4 (the grand mother-in-law) shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, subject to co-operation during investigation.

Order Date :- 27.9.2019




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation