2017 (4) TMI 728

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ein. The High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants - herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 – herein only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... shor Singh Yadav, AOR For the Respondent : Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR, Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Mr. Avdhesh Kr. Singh, Adv., Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Adv., Mr. S.A. Siddiqui, Adv., Mr. Satya Siddiqui, Adv. And Mr. B.K. Prasad, AOR ORDER Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 at length today. We .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 herein only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out against co-accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie. According to us, the F.I.R. in question filed against the appellants herein by Respondent No.2 is only an after-thought .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X