The Court refused to quash the impugned F.I.R. as it discloses a prima facie cognizable offence. However, it directed courts to expeditiously hear a bail application if filed within 30 days, citing specific precedents.
Prayer for quashing refused; direction to hear bail application expeditiously within 30 days.
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. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16272 of 2018
Petitioner :- Nizam Nizamuddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahboob Ahmad Siddiqui,Faizul Hasan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
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 1.6.2017 in Case Crime No. 337 of 2017 under Sections 60 U.P. Utpat Shulk/Aabkari Act and 420, 120-B, 467, 468 I.P.C., P.S.Fatehpur Sikri, District- Agra.
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.
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.
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 appear before the court concerned within thirty days from today and apply 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.
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.
With the above directions, this petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 21.6.2018 Shalini
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned F.I.R. disclosing cognizable offence is liable to be quashed for quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Relied on¶9
2005 Cr.L.J. 755
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
Nizam Nizamuddin
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Bala Krishna Narayana
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
