Disposed

Praveen v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 May 2019CRLP/15093/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash the FIR under IPC sections alleging harassment. However, the court directed that for two months, no coercive action be taken if the petitioner surrenders and applies for bail, citing specific precedents.

What did the court decide?

Direction that for two months or till petitioner surrenders/applies for bail, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner if he appears in court.

Praveen 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. - 15093 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Praveen Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mohd. Nadeem, 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.16 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioner; no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner 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

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶9

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶10

However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case, petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within two months 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 two months 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 action shall be taken against him.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Nitin Verma

Praveen v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen 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

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

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of U.P.

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

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others