Disposed

Smt. Amresh Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2018CRLP/28167/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition to quash the FIR as the allegations disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence. However, the court directed that if the petitioners apply for bail within thirty days, it shall be heard expeditiously. The order is inapplicable if investigation is completed and police report filed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the FIR refused; conditional direction to hear bail application expeditiously within thirty days.

Smt. Amresh Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 28167 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Amresh Devi And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,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. 410 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 323 and 506 I.P.C. , registered at P.S. Rampur Maniharan, DistrictSaharanpur.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made in the impugned FIR regarding commission of offences 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 :- 30.10.2018 SA

Smt. Amresh Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Amresh Devi and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashif and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajneesh Kumar Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pramod Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hemant Verma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Durga Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Om Prakash Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others