The High Court declined to quash the FIR in a criminal writ petition alleging fabricated charges. Instead, it ordered the petitioner to surrender within two months to avail bail without coercive action, citing relevant precedents.
Petitioner ordered to surrender within two months to apply for bail without coercive action.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15274 of 2019
Petitioner :- Akshaya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Sri Ram Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
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.0141 of 2019, under Sections 354B, 342 I.P.C. and 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Mandawar, District Bijnor.
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.
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.
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.
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.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Nitin Verma
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR containing false allegations is liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection from coercive action while surrendering and applying for bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Applied¶10
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Applied¶10
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Akshaya
State Of U.P.
Others
Vipin Sinha
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
