Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20326 of 2018 Petitioner :- Eleen Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikeya Saran Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 18.07.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0586 of 2018, under Sections 304, 288, 337, 338, 427, 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 Police Station Bisrakh, District G. B. Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the co-owner of the plot in question along with co-accused Pankaj Goyal who is mentioned as an accused no. 1 in the FIR. He further submits that though the FIR has been lodged against 24 accused persons out of whom 18 accused persons including Pankaj Goyal are already confined in jail. He further submitted that petition of the co- accused Manish Goyal who is the brother of co-accused Pankaj Goyal has already been rejected by this Court. So far as petitioner is concerned, she is an unmarried girl aged about 19 years and is a student of 1st year B. B. A. L.L.B. of Symboisis Law School, Noida. He next argued that the father of the petitioner had sold the disputed property in question in order to secure her future. The petitioner was not constructing any building on the disputed plot in question nor she is part of the builders activities. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless, hence present FIR lodged against the petitioner be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R.
Taking into account the fact that petitioner is an unmarried girl aged about 19 years and is a student and further considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and nature of the allegations, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but she shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.
With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.
The case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the other co-accused persons and it is made clear that the order granting interim protection to the petitioner shall not be treated as parity to the co-accused persons.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 30.7.2018/Ashok Gupta