Dismissed

Anwar Ali and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2019CRLP/13599/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court refused the prayer to quash the FIR, finding allegations disclose a cognizable offence. An interim order staying arrest made by a coordinate bench was allowed to continue conditionally for the petitioners to move for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the FIR refused. Interim stay on arrest allowed till 25.7.2019 subject to filing anticipatory bail application.

Anwar Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13599 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Anwar Ali And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Learned AGA has filed his a counter affidavit today in Court, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jai Narain, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶7

This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 12.4.2019, registered as case crime No.151 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 323, 420, 376, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Maduwadeeh, District Varanasi.

¶8

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.

¶9

The petitioners have 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 petitioners, who are apprehending their arrest are 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.

¶10

The petitionerss 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 20.5.2019 staying arrest of the petitioners, the same shall remain continue till 25th July, 2019, provided the petitioners 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 24th July, 2019.

¶11

The petition for writ is disposed of accordingly.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 17.7.2019/NS

Anwar Ali and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar Ali and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arashaduddeen and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mayur Chhattani and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Roop Singh @ Bhoora Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anshika Lodhi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nihal Ali and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shilpa and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others