Disposed

Saurabh @ Saurabh Saini v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 May 2019CRLP/15398/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court rejected the prayer to quash the FIR as prima facie cognizable offences are made out. However, it directed no coercive action against the petitioner for two months if they surrender and apply for bail, citing specific precedents.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against the petitioner for two months if he surrenders and applies for bail; otherwise, coercive action shall be taken.

Saurabh @ Saurabh Saini 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. - 15398 of 2019 Petitioner :- Saurabh @ Saurabh Saini Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

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

¶4

Exemption application is allowed.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Mithlesh Kumar, 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.215 of 2019, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 307 IPC, P.S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit.

¶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 :- 30.5.2019/SR

Saurabh @ Saurabh Saini v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh @ Saurabh Saini 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

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

Tanya Raj Vs Union of India and 4 Others

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

Dhananjay Tripathi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others