Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Shiv Prakash Singh Alias Guddu And Others vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|16 December, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11295 of 2021 Petitioner :- Shiv Prakash Singh Alias Guddu And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Daga Counsel for Respondent :- G.A, Saurabh Srivastava
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard Sri Amit Daga,learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and the learned A.G.A.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 02.10.2021 registered as Case Crime No.529 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC, P.S. Shivpur, District- Varanasi and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is son of the informant and there had been dispute between the son and father and merely because father has sought protection against his son under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 and thereafter the District Magistrate has passed the order against the son and his wife which was challenged by the wife of the petitioner no.1 by filing writ petition before this Court and her eviction was sought, this FIR has been lodged. He further submits that there is dispute regarding execution of agreement with tenant executed by the petitioner in full capacity and authority, due to which false and frivolous allegation has been levelled against the petitioners, thus, the FIR is malafide and arrest to abuse of process of law.
Per contra, Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 disputed the aforesaid facts and has drawn attention to the order passed by the District Magistrate under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence. He further pointed out that there are eight criminal history against the petitioners. We find in the criminal history also includes case alleging offences having committed under Sections 406, 419, 420 IPC. Details of eight criminal history against the petitioners are as follows.
1. Case Crime No.552 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 323, 504, 506, 427, 379 IPC, Police Station- Shivpur, District Varanasi.
2. Case Crime No.620 of 2020, under Sections 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Shivpur, District Varanasi.
3. Case Crime No.221 of 2021, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Shivpur, District Varanasi.
4. Case Crime No.260 of 2015, under Sections 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Kantt., District Varanasi.
5. Case Crime No.864 of 2020, under Sections 269, 270 IPC, Police Station- Kantt., District Varanasi.
6. Case Crime No.132 of 2015, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station- Shivpur, District Varanasi.
7. Case Crime No.281 of 2015, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Shivpur, District- Varanasi.
8. Case Crime No. 619 of 2020, under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Shivpur, District Varanasi.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that these criminal history are against the petitioner no.1 only and other petitioners are not concerned with the aforesaid criminal history.
Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and the judgment dated 7.10.2021 in Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & Anr. v. State of U.P., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3262 of 2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/ bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 A.Kr.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Shiv Prakash Singh Alias Guddu And Others vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
16 December, 2021
Judges
  • Vivek Kumar Birla
Advocates
  • Amit Daga