Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2019CRLP/34755/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected prayer to quash FIR under Essential Commodity Act as allegations disclose cognizable offence. Denied interim stay of arrest, directing petitioner to seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of FIR refused. Ancillary prayer for interim stay of arrest dismissed. Petitioner directed to file application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

Abhineet Kumar Chaurasia Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 34755 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Abhineet Kumar Chaurasia Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwan Saifullah Khan,Abhishek Ankur Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Diwan Saifullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Gaurav Pratap Singh, 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 01.09.2018 registered as case crime no.0253 of 2018 under sections 3/7 Essential Commodity Act 1955, Police station Shankargarh District Allahabad.

¶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

¶10

competent as per provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) on or before 22nd July, 2019.

¶11

The petition for writ is disposed of accordingly.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 9.7.2019 A. Dewal

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhineet Kumar Chaurasia 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

Statutes considered

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

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

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