Disposed

Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2018CRLP/33219/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR, finding prima facie cognizable offence disclosed. However, it granted a bail direction for expeditious hearing if the petitioner appears within thirty days, per Amrawati and Lal Kamlendra Singh. The order is void if investigation is completed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; bail to be heard expeditiously if applied within 30 days; order void if investigation completed.

Subhash Chandra 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. - 33219 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Deo Rai,Rajeev Giri Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 12.10.2018 in Case Crime No. 0592 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S.- Chhata, District- Mathura.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. regarding commission of offence by the petitioner 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 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 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 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 :- 19.11.2018 Abhishek

Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chandra 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

Mohd. Shakeel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Aadesh Kumar and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Budhasen and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kamlapat Rai Parshad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anju Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others