The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging coercion. It held no case for indulgence existed. Petitioner granted 45 days to surrender for bail consideration.
Extension of 45 days granted for surrender with a stay on coercive action.
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. - 13354 of 2018 Petitioner :- Lakkhi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey,Ravi Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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.170 of 2018, under Section- 363, 366 IPC, P.S.- Purkaji, districtMuzaffarnagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioner; 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 petitioner 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 petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within 45 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 45 days from today or till petitioner surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against petitioner. However, in case, petitioner does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.5.2018 Radhika
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR under Sections 363, 366 IPC is liable to be quashed as false and malicious.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and OthersReferred¶6
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¶6
Kamlesh Kumari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3700 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Lakkhi
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
