Disposed

Anand Prakash and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2018CRLP/36753/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash a first information report. The court found prima facie evidence of a cognizable offence, refused the quashing prayer, but directed judicial infrastructure to dispose of bail applications promptly.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash FIR refused; petition disposed of with direction to dispose of bail application expeditiously within thirty days.

Anand Prakash and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 36753 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Anand Prakash And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,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 first information report dated 4.12.2018 registered in Case Crime No. 494 of 2018, under Section 60/63/72 Excise Act and Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, district Ghazipur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing them. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned first information report no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime and hence the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed.

¶8

From the perusal of the first information report, 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 first information report. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned first information report is refused.

¶9

However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the first information report 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 accordance with law.

¶10

With the above directions, this petition is disposed of finally.

¶11

Order Date :- 17.12.2018 Shahnawaz

Anand Prakash and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Prakash and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadanand Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Mohan Lal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sushila Devi and 6 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Anuj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushil Gautam Alias Rahul and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others