Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Indresh Kumar @ Pappu & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13848 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15226 (10 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.32

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.13848 of 2007

Indresh Kumar @ Pappu & others v. State of U.P. & others.

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble V.D. Chaturvedi, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the impugned FIR.

It is submitted that petitioner no.1 was elected as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha in the year 2005 defeating Gajendra Singh, former Pradhan, and since then he became inimical to the petitioner and with a view to take revenge from him, hatched conspiracy to implicate him in the crime in question. It is further submitted that both the informant and the victim have given affidavit in the court of Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) in case crime no.593 of 2007, under Sections 395, 397 & 376 IPC read with Section 3 (2) V of the SC & ST Act, Police Station Jaithra, District Etah stating therein that they made false complaint at the instance of one Gajendra Singh, the former Pradhan. It is also submitted that both have made a categorical statement in their affidavit that the alleged incident, in fact, had never taken place and the impugned FIR was lodged at the instance of Gajendra Singh and his younger brother Brijendra Singh on the allurement that Rs.80,000/- would be given by the government. It is submitted that it is gross abuse of process of law and thus, the FIR deserves to be quashed.

Be that as it may, since the allegation made in the impugned FIR prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence and the investigation is going on, it would not be appropriate for this court at this stage to express any opinion. We, therefore, decline to grant any relief to the petitioners at this stage.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, it would be open to the petitioners to apply for bail in case crime no. 593 of 2007, under Sections 395, 397 & 376 IPC read with Section 3 (2) V of the SC & ST Act, Police Station Jaithra, District Etah. We have no doubt that the same would be considered and disposed of expeditiously.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.