Disposed

Vijendra Singh @ Vijay and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2018CRLP/33526/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to quash the FIR as it disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence. However, it directed the lower court to hear a bail application expeditiously after 30 days unless the investigation was completed and police report filed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing FIR refused; direction to lower court to hear bail application expeditiously within 30 days if investigation incomplete.

Vijendra Singh @ Vijay and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 33526 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Vijendra Singh @ Vijay And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶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 13.11.2018 in Case Crime No. 1355 of 2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 I.P.C., P.S.- Sikandrabad, District- Bulandshahr.

¶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 :- 22.11.2018 Shalini

Vijendra Singh @ Vijay and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra Singh @ Vijay 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Bahadur Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Sarvesh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mukesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Babu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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