Disposed

Sameer v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jun 2018CRLP/15787/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to quash the FIR alleging offences under IPC Sections 307 and 386 as allegations disclosed a cognizable offence. However, it directed courts to hear bail applications within thirty days and excluded benefits if the police report was filed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of FIR rejected; direction for expeditious hearing of bail application issued subject to conditions.

Sameer Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15787 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sameer Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Sahu,Ram Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 14.12.2016 in Case Crime No. 1720 of 2016 under Sections 307, 386 I.P.C., P.S.- Sihani Gate, District- Ghaziabad.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. regarding commission of offence by the petitioner under the aforesaid sections are palpably false and moreover the same do not disclose any cognizable offence. The impugned F.I.R. is thus liable to be quashed.

¶8

From the perusal of the impugned F.I.R., it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, a prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference in the F.I.R. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.

¶9

However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case the petitioners appear before the court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of

¶10

expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶11

It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.

¶12

With the above directions, this petition is disposed of finally.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.6.2018 R

Sameer v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Monu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Avadhesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay @ Panju Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anoj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Karam Hussain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others