Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2018CRLP/8804/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the petitioner's prayer to quash the FIR as prima facie cognizable offences were made out. However, the Court directed that if the petitioner applies for bail within thirty days, the lower courts must hear and decide the matter expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Refused to quash the FIR. Directed lower courts to dispose of any bail application filed within 30 days expeditiously.

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8804 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vijay Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh,A.K.S.Parihar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Purushottam Maurya Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the F. I. R., which has been registered as Case Crime No. 106 of 2018, under Sections-498-A, 354, 452, 323, 504, 506, 325 and 307 I. P. C. and Sections-3 / 4 of D. P. Act at P. S.-Rasoolabad, district-Rama Bai Nagar / Kanpur Dehat.

¶5

From the perusal of the order-sheet it is clear that this case was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court vide order dated 9.4.2018. The report of the Mediation Centre of this Court dated 20.8.2018 indicates that the mediation between the parties had failed. Now we proceed to examine the matter on merits.

¶6

From the perusal of the F. I. R., 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 F. I. R. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F. I. R. is refused.

¶7

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 reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶8

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

¶9

Order Date :- 17.11.2018 / HR

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arvind Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others