Dismissed

Mahamendra @ Bablu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2018CRLP/18024/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash the FIR in a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. However, it directed that the petitioner shall not face coercive action if he surrenders and applies for bail within 45 days. If he fails to appear, coercive action may be initiated.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against the petitioner if he surrenders and applies for bail within 45 days.

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

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18024 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mahamendra @ Bablu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhat Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

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. 0313 of 2018 u/s 307, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC PS Karhal District Mainpuri.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; entire family members have been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations; 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(s) 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.

¶7

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶8

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶9

However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed 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.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 11.7.2018/SP

Mahamendra @ Bablu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahamendra @ Bablu 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

State of U.P. Vs Hifjur Rehman Urf Guddu

State of U.P. Vs Suresh Yadav and 3 Others

State of U.P. Vs Sonu Urf Avinash and Anr.

State of U.P. Vs Raju and 3 Others

Tej Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Julfekar Ali and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others