Writ petition seeking quashing of FIR rejected as FIR discloses cognizable offence. Court restricted order to bail hearing within thirty days if petition appears, referencing specific precedents.
Prayer for quashing of FIR dismissed; directions for expeditious bail hearing provided.
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. - 27315 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sheel @ Anil Kumar Bharatiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhupendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. 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 18.07.2016 in Case Crime No. 247 of 2016 under Section 386 I.P.C., P.S.- Jhunsi, District- Allahabad.
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 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.
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 :- 1.10.2018 KS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR disclosing a cognizable offence should be quashed.
Whether the petitioner should be granted stay of investigation pending bail application.
Sheel @ Anil Kumar Bharatiya
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Bala Krishna Narayana
Naheed Ara Moonis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
