Dismissed

Umesh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2019CRLP/26147/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR under Sections 302 and 120B IPC, the high court held that since a cognizable offence is discernible from the FIR, there are no grounds to quash it. The petition was dismissed, but conditional relief was granted allowing bail consideration if the petitioners surrender within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order is passed accordingly; liberty granted to approach courts below for bail if appearance or surrender is made within four weeks.

Umesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26147 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Umesh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 21.10.2019 registered in Case Crime No. 0396 of 2019, under Sections 302 and 120B I.P.C., P.S. Mohammadabad, district Fatehgarh.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 against the petitioners with the allegations that the petitioners have played active roll in the aforesaid crime whereas the petitioners have no concern with respect to death of son of the complainant who was run over by a pick up. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned first information report no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime and hence the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra the learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations contained in the first information report cannot be nipped in the bud. There are sufficient material showing the complicity of the petitioners. The innocence of the petitioners cannot be adjudged at this stage.

¶9

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P. , 2006 (56) ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569, after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the FIR or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.

¶10

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners.

¶11

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

However, it is provided that if the petitioners appear or surrender before the Court concerned within four weeks from today and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered by the courts below in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Shahnawaz

Umesh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Shivraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Abhishek Jain Jain and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandra Dev Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others