Disposed

Sher Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2018CRLP/27397/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR for offences under IPC Sections 307, 352, 452, 506 was dismissed as cognizable offence is prima facie made out. The court directed the courts below to expeditiously hear bail applications if filed within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Directions to lower courts to expeditiously hear bail applications within thirty days, subject to the non-filing of the police report.

Sher Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27397 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sher Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Pandey,Lal Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 357 of 2018, under sections 307, 352, 452, 506 IPC, PS Meerganj, District Bareilly.

¶7

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.

¶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 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 1.10.2018 Sazia

Sher Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sher Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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