Dismissed

Sekh Wahid and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2019CRLP/1241/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court refused to quash the F.I.R. as allegations disclosed a cognizable offence. It denied an interim stay on arrest, directing the petitioner to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, allowing an existing co-ordinate bench order to stand until July 25, 2019.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; interim stay of arrest extended conditional upon filing anticipatory bail application by July 23, 2019.

Sekh Wahid and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1241 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sekh Wahid And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.C.Tiwari(Ac),Shamshuddin Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. A.R. Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 06.01.2019, registered as case crime no. 04 of 2019, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and 4/5 Explosive Material Act 1908, police station Kabrai, District Mahoba.

¶7

Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and/therefore no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.

¶8

The petitioner/s has also prayed for an interim order to stay the arrest during the course of investigation relating to the FIR that is sought to be quashed in this petition. In view of the judgment of Apex Court passed the case of State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal Rungta reported in AIR 1952 SC 12 and Kala Bharti Advertising vs. Hemant Vimal Nath Narichania & ors. reported in 2010 (9) SCC 437 when we are not inclined to grant the main relief sought by the petitioner/s, it would not be appropriate to grant the ancillary relief. Beside that the petitioner, who is apprehending his arrest is having an efficacious remedy of filing an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) to have anticipatory bail.

¶9

The petitioner/s may avail such remedy if so advised. As there appears to be an interim order passed in this petition by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 21.1.2019 staying arrest of the petitioner/s, the same shall remain continue till 25th July, 2019, provided the petitioner/s move an application before the Court competent as per provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) on or before 23rd July, 2019.

¶10

The petition for writ is disposed of accordingly.

¶11

(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 11.7.2019 T.S.

Sekh Wahid and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sekh Wahid 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K Modi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deen Dayal Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Brij Mohan Lavaniya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

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

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