The High Court in a criminal writ petition refused to quash the FIR but directed courts below to hear bail applications expeditiously within thirty days, noting that completed investigation bars this benefit.
Prayer for quashing refused; direction to courts below to expeditiously hear bail applications within 30 days if filed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 33131 of 2018
Petitioner :- Budhasen And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
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 24.09.2018 in Case Crime No. 161 of 2018 under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 I.P.C., P.S.- Paschim Sarira, District- Kaushambi.
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.
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.
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.
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.
With the above directions, this petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 19.11.2018 Shubhankar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned F.I.R. under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 I.P.C. discloses a cognizable offence warranting quashing in certiorari.
Whether directions shall be issued for consideration of bail applications expeditiously in view of settled law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 755
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Budhasen
Another
State Of U.P.
Bala Krishna Narayana
Rajiv Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
