The High Court rejected the petitioner's plea to quash the FIR under IPC and POCSO. While the FIR was dismissed, the court directed that bail applications be considered expeditiously if the petitioner surrenders.
Writ petition dismissed; bail to be considered expeditiously if petitioner surrenders.
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. - 173 of 2019
Petitioner :- Ravi Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishabh Kumar,Ambuj Pandey,Markanday Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and 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. 0803 of 2018, under Section- 376, 506, 511 IPC and section 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Hariparwat, district- Agra.
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 .
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.
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 .
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, the Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of any indulgence is made out.
However, it is provided that in case, petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.1.2019 Kuldeep
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the FIR.
Whether false allegations and lack of prima facie evidence warrant quashing the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and OthersReferred¶10
2009 (1) SCC 516 · Who else cites this
Kamlesh Kumari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.Referred¶10
2015 AIR SCW 3700 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravi Kumar
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Vipin Sinha
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
