Dismissed

Bheem Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2019CRLP/11244/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging sexual assault and blackmail. The Court found prima facie evidence of a serious cognizable offence and refused the prayer for quashing or stay of arrest.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of FIR or staying arrest refused. Interim bail conditioned on surrender within 30 days.

Bheem Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11244 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Bheem Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajit Singh,Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

The relief sought by means of this petition is for quashing of the FIR dated 7.4.2019 registered as Case Crime No.309 of 2019 under Sections 323/504/506 & 376 IPC, Police Station Noida Sector 39, District Gautam, Buddh Nagar.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are unnecessarily being harassed by the police personnel. The first information report has been lodged against the petitioners so as to wreak personal vengeance. There is no evidence connecting the petitioners with the said offence. |The first information report has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation so as to rope the entire family. The life and liberty of the petitioners cannot be downsized on the uncorroborated allegations hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned contended that there is sufficient material showing the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of said offence. The contents of the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The role of the accused persons cannot be deciphered at this stage. All the petitioners are jointly and severally liable for the commission of said offence hence they are liable to be prosecuted.

¶9

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners . No cogent and convincing reason has been put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners prompting this Court to quash the FIR. The petitioners are involved in the serious offence of blackmailing an innocent lady subjecting to carnal intercourse. This Court does not find any justifiable ground for quashing the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners hence the prayer for quashing the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners is refused.

¶10

The writ petition does not have any substance and 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, they shall be released on interim bail till the disposal of the regular bail application.

¶12

Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Naim

Bheem Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheem Singh and 2 Others 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

Ajay Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Prince Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Varun Arora and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Amit Singh @ Amit Pratap Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others