REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SATYA PAL Appellant

V/S

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RAMLAL YADAV V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSUL ISLAM ALIAS AFROZ V. STATE OF U.P. [APPROVED W.P. NO. 2588 OF 1998,D/- 28-7-1998 (ALL), ()4,30]
MAHESH YADAV V. STATE OF U.P.,W.P. NO. 4658 OF 1998 [REFERRED TO]
LT COL PRITHI PAL SINGH BEDI CAPT DHARAM PAL KUKRETY GAPT CHANDER KUMAR CHOPRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [DISTINGUSHED]
PRABODH VERMA DAL CHAND VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANT SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [FOLLOWED ON]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
JANATA DAL VS. H.S.CHOWDHARY [REFERRED TO]
G L DIDWANIA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH KRIPA SHANKAR RAI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH DE VS. ARCHNA GUHA [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MADHUSUDAN SINGH NARAIN MAHTO VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RUPAN DEOL BAJAJ MRS B R BAJAJ VS. KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL:STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. ISHWAR PIRAJI KALPATRI:ISHWAR PIRAJI KALPATRI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAJENDRA AGRAWALLA [REFERRED TO]
MUSHTAQ AHMAD VS. MOHAMMAD HABIBUR REHMAN FAIZI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. O P SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION SPE SIU X NEW DELHI VS. DUNCANS AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI KUMAR VS. MAHESH KUMAR BHADA [REFERRED TO]
PEPSI FOODS LIMITED VS. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE [REFERRED TO]
VINEETNARAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NAGPUR STEEL V. RADHY KRISHNA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB V. DHARAM VEER SINGH JETHI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the person lodging a First Information Report (F.I.R.) with police regarding an offence or a crime has to be heard as necessary party before deciding a writ petition by an accused under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court for quashing the said F.I.R. and whether the writ petition at the admission stage can be finally disposed of with the direction of stay of arrest of petitioner without inviting counter-affidavit from the informant and the investigating agency even when the F.I.R. discloses prima facie cognizable offence are the core questions in this reference which are of great significance and far reaching consequences as large number of writ petitions are filed in this Court for quashing of F.I.R. and stay of arrest.

(2.) Petitioners, Satya Pal and others have sought issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the F.I.R. dated 27-9-1998 on the basis of which Crime No. 798 of 1998 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, on several grounds stated in the petition apart from citing as precedence the order dated 3-11-1998 of a Division Bench of this Court in Mahesh Yadav's writ petition.

(3.) Mahesh Yadav, brother of petitioner Satya Pal filed Writ Petition No. 4658 of 1998 for quashing the very same F.I.R. before a Division Bench (of which one of us, S. Rafat Alam, J. was a member), which disposed of the writ petition on that very date, i.e. 3-11-1998 with the direction that the petitioners therein shall not be arrested in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 798 of 1998 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, I.P.C. until submission of the report under Sections 173, Cr.P.C. subject to their full co-operation in investigation.

Click here to view full judgment.

SATYA PAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address