The Court refused to quash the FIR as it prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence. However, directing expeditious hearing of bail if applied within 30 days, based on Seven Judges' decision law.
Prayer for quashing of F.I.R. refused; direction to hear bail application expeditiously if applied 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. - 27394 of 2018
Petitioner :- Birju @ Brijpal @ Bijendra And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 15.09.2018 registered as in Case Crime No. 446 of 2018, under sections 363, 366, 376, 504 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Mundali, District Meerut.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made in the impugned FIR regarding commission of offence by the petitioners under aforesaid sections are palpably false and moreover the same do not disclose any cognizable offence. The impugned FIR is thus liable to be quashed.
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.
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case the petitioners 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 down 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 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).
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 petitioners 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 Sazia
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. discloses a cognizable offence and is liable to be quashed.
Whether bail application by petitioners should be heard expeditiously.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
2005 Cr.L.J. 755
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
Birju @ Brijpal @ Bijendra And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Bala Krishna Narayana
Naheed Ara Moonis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
