Disposed

Avitap Singh @ Amitabh Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 May 2019CRLP/14958/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. It held that a cognizable offence was made out and no case for indulgence existed. A specific order for non-coercive action was issued pending bail application if the petitioner surrenders within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action for 60 days pending surrender and bail application; otherwise action may be taken.

Avitap Singh @ Amitabh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14958 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Avitap Singh @ Amitabh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arjun Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No. 191 of 2019, under Section- 279, 304A, 504, 506 IPC and section 3(1)(D) and 3(2)(P), 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act P.S.- Pipari, district- Kaushambi.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by complainant containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing petitioner(s); 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(s) 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.

¶8

We have perused the FIR and from perusal of the allegations as made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out.

¶9

Reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others reported in 2009 (1) SCC 516. The said decision has also been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Kumari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3700 .

¶10

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned FIR and keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases and also looking to the seriousness of the allegation as made in the FIR, gravity of offence and the severity of punishment, no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.

¶11

However, it is provided that in case petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 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 60 days from today or till petitioner surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against petitioner. However, in case, petitioner does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive

¶12

action shall be taken against him.

¶13

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

¶14

Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Kuldeep

Avitap Singh @ Amitabh Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avitap Singh @ Amitabh Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramhans Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Muli Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalua Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Praveen Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others