Dismissed

Kushmakar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2018CRLP/32854/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to quash an F.I.R. alleging offences under Section 326 I.P.C. The High Court refused to quash the F.I.R. due to existence of prima facie cognizable offence. The Court directed courts to hear bail applications expeditiously if filed within thirty days, subject to terms.

What did the court decide?

Order disposing of the writ petition with directions to hear bail applications expeditiously if filed within thirty days.

Kushmakar Singh and Another Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 32854 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Kushmakar Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagdish Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 18.06.2018 in Case Crime No. 0208 of 2018 under added Section 326 I.P.C., P.S.- Patherawar, District- Kushi Nagar.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. regarding commission of offence by the petitioners under the aforesaid sections are palpably false and moreover the same do not disclose any cognizable offence. The impugned F.I.R. is thus liable to be quashed.

¶8

From the perusal of the impugned F.I.R., it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, a prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference in 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 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 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶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 :- 16.11.2018 Sweety

Kushmakar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kushmakar Singh 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

Ruvina and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Laxmi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kavita and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Aditya Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Viresh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Guddi Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others