The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash an FIR. It held that cognizable offences were made out and denied summary relief, but directed expeditious consideration of bail petitions if the petitioners surrender.
Exemption application allowed; Writ petition disposed without quashing FIR or granting bail directly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10003 of 2018
Petitioner :- Farhat And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Prabhakar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.
Exemption application is allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed supplementary affidavit today which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No. 62 of 2018, under Section- 363, 366, 120B IPC, P.S.- Kadar Chowk, district- Badaun.
It is submitted that both the petitioners have been named in the FIR and the statement of under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been annexed as annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F. I. R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.
We have perused the FIR and from perusal of the allegations as made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out.
Reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others reported in 2009 (1) SCC 516. The said decision has also been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Kumari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3700 .
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned FIR and keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases the Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
However, it is provided that in case, petitioners appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 Ujjawal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR under Sections 363, 366, 120B IPC should be quashed summarily.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail without appearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and OthersReferred¶11
R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others reported in 2009 (1) SCC 516. · Who else cites this
Kamlesh Kumari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.Referred¶11
Kamlesh Kumari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3700 · Who else cites this
Farhat
Another
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Vipin Sinha
Mahboob Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
