High Courts(1999) 08 AHC CK 0122

Ganesh Singh vs State of U.P.through Secretary Home (Crime & Inv.) Lucknow & Ors.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 30 August 1999

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.D.Shukla, J and Khem Karan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 2761 (M/B) of 1999

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 368 words
1.

Counteraffidavit filed by the State be taken on record.

2.

Heard Sri Anand Prakash Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State.

3.

This petition has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. giving rise to crime No. 116/99 under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster Act, 1986, P.S. Mill Area, district Rae Bareli, on the grounds inter alia that the two crime numbers shown in the F.I.R. have ended in the Final Report and that F.I.R. is mala fide. In counteraffidavit filed by the State, it has been stated in paras 8 and 9, that in crime No. 943/98 under Sections 386, 384, 504, 506 of I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, district Rae Bareli and in crime No. 946/98 under Sections 384, 386, 504, 506 of I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, district Rae Bareli, a Final Report has been submitted because none of the witnesses could have courage to state anything against the present petitioner.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the final report has been submitted in the aforesaid crimes, registered against the present petitioner and allegations in'' the FI.R. have ended, in final report, is sufficient enough to quash the F.I.R. in question.

5.

The learned counsel for the State has, however, submitted that mere submissions of the final report does not afford a good ground for the petitioner to get the F.I.R. quashed. He submits that there are various allegations as mentioned in the F.I.R. which have to be investigated and the evidence collected.

6.

After having heard the parties counsel and having perused the counteraffidavit, we are of the view that there are no good grounds for quashing the F.I.R. and the allegations made in the F.I.R. are to be investigated. So, the petition for quashing the F.I.R, is to be dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it appropriate to direct that the petitioner will not be arrested till the sub mission of the report under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. in Crime No. 116/99 under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act, P.S. Mill Area, district Rae Bareli. So, the petition is dismissed with the directions referred to above. Petition dismissed.