Dismissed

Satish Kumar Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2019CRLP/3942/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused the prayer to quash the FIR, finding that the allegations disclose a cognizable offence. The interim prayer to stay arrest was refused as anticipatory bail is the efficacious remedy, continuing the earlier interim stay until the petitioner moves for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash FIR is refused; the interim stay continues until the petitioner applies for anticipatory bail.

Satish Kumar Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3942 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyawan Shahi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Satyawan Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jai Narain, 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 05.02.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 36 of 2019, under sections 379, 506 I.P.C, Police Station Chhawani Disdtrict Basti.

¶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 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 13.02.2019 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 before 24th July, 2019.

¶10

The petition for writ is disposed of accordingly.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 12.7.2019 T.S.

Satish Kumar Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Singh and 3 Others 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

Sekh Wahid and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Poonam Dwivedi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Madan @ Madan Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Neeraj Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Timma @ Waseem Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Piyush Jain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others