Disposed

Raj Bahadur Yadav @ Yagya Narayan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2019A482/31458/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of FIR under Sections 323, 506, 308 IPC was rejected due to cognizable offence. However, a stay on coercive action was granted for 30 days if the applicant surrenders and applies for bail.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR rejected; stay on coercive action for 30 days if applicant surrenders and applies for bail.

Raj Bahadur Yadav @ Yagya Narayan Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31458 of 2019 Applicant :- Raj Bahadur Yadav @ Yagya Narayan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Babu Kesharwani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Jay Babu Kesharwani, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Badelal Bind, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

This application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in Case No. 44 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Bahadur and others), under Sections 323, 506, 308, IPC, Police Station, Mau, District Chitrakoot as well as charge sheet dated 13.03.2019, arising out of FIR No. 0232 of 2018.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the applicant with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶6

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶7

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶8

However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case, applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 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. For a period of 30 days from today or till applicant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶9

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶10

Order Date :- 16.9.2019 VKG

Raj Bahadur Yadav @ Yagya Narayan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Bahadur Yadav @ Yagya Narayan v. State of U.P. and Another

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

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

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Uma Shankar Srivas Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Pawan Dixit Vs State of U.P. and 2 Other

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

Kailash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another