Dismissed

Praveen Kumar Singh @ Praveen and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2019CRLP/10583/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR was dismissed as prima facie cognizable offences were made out. However, interim bail was granted to two petitioners with a direction to consider bail expeditiously if the others surrender within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; interim bail granted to two petitioners; direction to consider bail applications expeditiously if others surrender within 30 days.

Praveen Kumar Singh @ Praveen and 8 Others Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10583 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Singh @ Praveen And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- V.S. Rajpoot Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vivek Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.S. Rajpoot , learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 14.03.2019, registered as Case Crime No. 190 of 2019 under Sections 376, 354, 498-A, 323, 307, 504, 506, 326-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Kanker Khera, District-Meerut.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed on the basis of false allegations made against them while prima facie no cognizable offence is made out pursuant to the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 Rashami. A part from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A as well as the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶9

From the perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners are involved in the serious offences hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners. The prayer for quashing the F.I.R. is refused.

¶10

The petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶11

However, it is provided that if the petitioners appear or surrender before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶12

It is further provided that the petitioner nos.3 and 8, Smt. Sharda Singh and Smt. Amita shall be released on interim bail till the final disposal of the regular bail application.

¶13

Order Date :- 23.4.2019 Rahul.

Praveen Kumar Singh @ Praveen and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Singh @ Praveen and 8 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Sharma and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saweez and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nirmala and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Othrs

Deepak Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others