Disposed

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

Allahabad HC29 Oct 2018CRLP/30776/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging commission of offence under section 307 IPC. The court refused the prayer for quashing as cognizable offence was prima facie made out. However, the petitioners were directed to seek bail expeditiously under 2005 Cr.L.J. 755.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing discharged; direction issued for petitioners to apply for bail within 30 days for expeditious disposal.

Pramod Pandey and Another Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 30776 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Pramod Pandey And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi 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. dated 29.09.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 257 of 2018, under section 307 IPC, PS Vindhyachal, District Mirzapur.

¶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 :- 29.10.2018 Sazia

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Pandey and Another 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

Ambrish Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shakeel Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Saabiya Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

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