Disposed

Mehdi Husain Samin Rizvi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2019CRLP/2544/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash an FIR alleging cheating and forgery. However, it directed immediate bail consideration for the petitioner if he surrendered within two months without coercive action during that period.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action for two months if petitioner surrenders and applies for bail; immediate bail consideration thereafter.

Mehdi Husain Samin Rizvi Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2544 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mehdi Husain Samin Rizvi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nazrul Islam Jafri Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Misra,Brij Lal Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and 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.40 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Jaunpur.

¶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 petitioners; 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 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 :- 5.4.2019 R./

Mehdi Husain Samin Rizvi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehdi Husain Samin Rizvi 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

Ashok Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Riyaz Ahmad Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Rekha Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Hariom Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gulshan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jagdish Chauhan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others