Rohit Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Satendra Singh and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 15, 2010

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/918197

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/918197
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Ravindra Singh; Arvind Kumar Tripathi, JJ.
Decided On: Nov 15, 2010
Case Number: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3917 of 2010
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Satendra Singh and Others

Advocate Santosh Kumar Mishra, Adv

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate Govt. Advocate; Devesh Vikram; Punit Kr. Bhalla; R.K. Singh; R.P. Singh, Advs

Excerpt

1. list revised. learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. 2. heard learned a.g.a. shri devesh vikram, shri r.p.singh learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 3. this petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned first information report of case crime no.434 of 2010 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 i.p.c. ps. kotwali, district bareilly. 4. from a perusal of the first information report the allegations made in the first information report are prima facie disclosing the cognizable offence. there is no good ground to interfere with the impugned first information report and the prayer for quashing the same is refused. 5. however, considering the fact and circumstances of the case it is directed that in case the investigation is pending, the petitioner shall not be arrested till the submission of police report but the petitioner will co-operate with the investigation. in case the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been submitted, it shall be opened to the authority concerned to ensure the arrest of the petitioner. 6. with the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.

Full Judgment

1. List revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present.

2. Heard learned A.G.A. Shri Devesh Vikram, Shri R.P.Singh learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

3. This petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report of Case Crime No.434 of 2010 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. PS. Kotwali, District Bareilly.

4. From a perusal of the First Information Report the allegations made in the First Information Report are prima facie disclosing the cognizable offence. There is no good ground to interfere with the impugned First Information Report and the prayer for quashing the same is refused.

5. However, considering the fact and circumstances of the case it is directed that in case the investigation is pending, the petitioner shall not be arrested till the submission of police report but the petitioner will co-operate with the investigation. In case the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been submitted, it shall be opened to the authority concerned to ensure the arrest of the petitioner.

6. With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2010 Same Parties Satendra Singh and Others vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Ravindra Singh; Arvind Kumar Tripathi, JJ.