Dismissed

Pradeep v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2018CRLP/27404/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash an FIR under Section 392 IPC praying it disclosed no offence. Court refused quash as FIR prima facie showed cognizable offence but ordered speedy bail hearing within 30 days citing settled law unless police report filed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of FIR refused; direction to dispose of bail application expeditiously if made within 30 days.

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

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27404 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Pradeep Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Behari Saxena 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 A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. in Case Crime No.752 of 2018, under Section 392 IPC registered at P.S. Vrindawan, District-Mathura.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the impugned FIR regarding commission of offence by the petitioner 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 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 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 petitioner 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 M. Tariq

Pradeep v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Dinesh Chandra Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others