Dismissed

Rishipal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jun 2018CRLP/16045/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to quash an F.I.R. under Section 304 I.P.C. The court refused quashing as the F.I.R. disclosed a cognizable offence but directed expedited bail hearing if the petitioner applies within thirty days, subject to investigation status.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing the F.I.R. refused; expedited bail hearing directed if applied within 30 days.

Rishipal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16045 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rishipal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Pundir,Narendra Singh Chahar 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 a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 03.06.2018 in Case Crime No. 242 of 2018 under Section 304 I.P.C., P.S.- Rampur Maniharan, District- Saharanpur.

¶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 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 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.

¶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 :- 20.6.2018 KS

Rishipal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishipal 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

Sonu Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sameer Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Reema and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sageer @ Kallan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kaushalendra Mishra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others