Dismissed

Ram Pravesh Yadav @ Bablu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 May 2018CRLP/12947/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR and direction not to arrest a petitioner who is also an accused in related cases. The court held that given the petitioner's criminal history and forceful occupation of property, no indulgence was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no case was made out for grant of any indulgence.

Ram Pravesh Yadav @ Bablu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12947 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Pravesh Yadav @ Bablu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Gopal Swarup Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Sand, learned AGA-I assisted by Sri R. K. Maurya, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR registered as case crime no. 0375 of 2018, U/s 447, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali District Deoria. An alternative prayer has also been made seeking direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 2 and 3 not to arrest and harass the petitioner in aforementioned case apart from the other reliefs as sought.

¶7

Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the recital as contained in the FIR “itself”, relevant portion of which is being reproduced herein below :

¶8

“ rFkk izkFkhZx.k ml Hkwfe ij crkSj Hkwfe/kj dkfct nkf[ky gSA eSa ukSdjh ea yxHkx 40 o"kksZ rd ckgj jgus ds mijkUr fjVk;j s gksdj okil vkus ij ik;k fd Jh jkeizos'k ;kno mQZ cCyw ;kno iq= txrujk;.k ;kno ftyk iapk;r v/;{k nsofj;k us tcju dCtk dj dqN tehuksaq dks viuh ekW esokrh nsoh ds uke

¶9

¶10

ij cSukek djk dj mls vU; yksxksa dks csp fn;k gS ckdh ds tehuksa ij dCtk dj mls Hkh csp jgs gSA tehuksa dk fooj.k ftl ij jkeizos'k ;kno }kjk tcju dCtk fd;k x;k gS oks fuEu gSA [kkrk Ø0] [kljk ua0 {ks=Qy¼gs0½]xzke dkuke] rglhy@tuin& 1- 190339] 1418] 0-279] nsofj;k [kkl ¼le-½ ¼v-u-ik-½]nsofj;k 2- 216755] 919] 0-271]nsofj;k ¼l-e-½¼oku-ik-½ nsofj;k 3- 216732] 185] 0-0970] vesBh¼l-e-½¼ok-u-ik-½] nsofj;k 4- 216732] 375] 0-3640] vesBh¼l-e-½¼ok-u-ik-½] nsofj;k] 5- 216732] 186] 0-2270] vesBh¼l-e-½¼ok-u-ik-½] nsofj;k] mijksDr lHkh tehuksa ij jkeizos'k ;kno iq= rtxr ujk;u ;kno ftyk iapk;r v/;{k] nsofj;k us tcju dCtk dj j[kk gSA Mj o Hk; dh otg ls vkt rd ge yksx mlds f[kykQ dqN ugha dj lds gSA ”

¶11

It may be appreciated that the petitioner in the present

¶12

case is also an accused in case crime no. 368 of 2018 aggrieved against which the petitioner filed a writ petition being crl. misc. writ petition no. 12950 of 2018 which has already been dismissed by means of a very elaborate order passed today itself wherein the criminal history of the petitioner has also been considered.

¶13

Sri Chaturvedi has also very fairly informed the Court that the writ petition of the co-accused in the present case Mewati Devi, who happens to be the mother of the petitioner, has already been dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.5.2018 passed in crl. misc. writ petition no. 12879 of 2018, copy of which has been produced before this Court today and is taken on record.

¶14

It has to be appreciated that it is the petitioner who is the main accused as per the FIR, thus, keeping in view the fact that

¶15

¶16

co-accused, who happens to be the mother has already been refused any indulgence, this Court cannot grant any indulgence whatsoever to the petitioner. The record itself shows that the petitioner happens to be Zila Panchayat Adhyaksh of Deoria and it was he with his political power had occupied by force the property which has been mentioned in the FIR itself.

¶17

Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also keeping in view the detailed order passed in crl. misc. writ petition no. 12950 of 2018 and also in view of the parameters as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another reported in 2017 (9) SCC 641 , no case for grant of any indulgence in the present case is made out.

¶18

Accordingly, in view of the admitted position, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶19

Let a copy of the order be also placed on record of Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 12950 of 2018.

¶20

Order Date :- 25.5.2018 Kuldeep

Ram Pravesh Yadav @ Bablu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pravesh Yadav @ Bablu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Archana Dubey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rooby and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Gulfam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Karishma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anoop Singh Yadav Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Neelam Porwal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others