Dismissed

Nagesh Mittal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2019CRLP/16/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR under IPC 153A and IT Act 66A. Court refused quashing as allegations disclose cognizable offence. Stay of arrest denied; existing interim order continued pending application for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused; interim stay of arrest confirmed till 25.7.2019 subject to filing anticipatory bail application.

Nagesh Mittal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Nagesh Mittal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.R. Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 18.12.2018 registered as case crime no. 373 of 2018 under sections 153A I.P.C. and 66A The Information Technology (amended) Act 2008, Police station Kotwali Nagar, District Sharanpur.

¶7

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.

¶8

The petitioner/s has 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 petitioner, who is apprehending his arrest is 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.

¶9

The petitioner/s may avail such remedy if so advised. As there appears to be an interim order passed in this petition by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 9.5.2019 staying arrest of the petitioner/s, the same shall remain continue till 25th July, 2019, provided the petitioner/s 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

¶10

before 22nd July, 2019. The petition for writ is disposed of accordingly.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 9.7.2019 A. Dewal

Nagesh Mittal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagesh Mittal 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

Kapil Narula Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kapil Narula Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Saif Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Wazid and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Abhineet Kumar Chaurasia Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajani and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others