Dismissed

Yogesh Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2018CRLP/27389/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash an FIR under section 376 IPC as a prima facie case was made out. However, following settled law from Supreme Court precedents, the court directed that the petitioner's bail application be heard expeditiously within fifteen days. The court reserved the benefit of this order until the police report is filed.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing of the FIR was refused. The petitioner was directed to apply for bail within fifteen days for expedited hearing.

Yogesh Sharma 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. - 27389 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Yogesh Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the FIR dated 16.09.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 1031 of 2018, under section 376 IPC, PS Tajganj, District Agra.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned FIR has been lodged by respondent No. 4 alleging commission of offence under section 376 IPC against the petitioner as a counter blast to the FIR lodged by Pinki, wife of petitioner against Saurabh, brotherin-law (devar) of respondent No. 4 under section 354, 506 IPC. He next submitted that apart from bald allegations made in the F.I.R., no evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of alleged crime, and hence the impugned F.I.R., which is a product of malice and bundle of lies, is 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 fifteen 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

¶10

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).

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 1.10.2018 Sazia

Yogesh Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Sharma 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

Smt. Priya and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Pradeep Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Musheer @ Musheer Khan and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others