Disposed

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

Allahabad HC19 Jun 2018CRLP/15886/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash the FIR alleging offences under Section 409 IPC as prima facie a cognizable offence exists. However, the Court directed the petitioner to be heard on bail within thirty days if he appears, based on settled Supreme Court law. The order is not effective if investigation is complete.

What did the court decide?

Petition refused; directions issued for bail hearing within thirty days if petitioner appears.

Karam Hussain Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15886 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Karam Hussain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Misra 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 A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. in Case Crime no. 0017 of 2018 , under Section 409 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Dumariganj, District- Siddarth Nagar.

¶7

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

¶8

From the perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference with 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 petitioner, it is directed that in case the petitioner appears before the court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in view of the settled law laid down 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 which has been affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 19.6.2018 Krishna

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karam Hussain 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

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

Sukhram Maurya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others