Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2019CRLP/5084/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to quash an FIR under various IPC sections involving cheating and forgery, finding disclosures of a cognizable offence. It denied interim stay of arrest, directing the petitioner to file for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC instead.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of FIR refused; interim stay of arrest not granted; petitioner directed to file for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

Madan @ Madan Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5084 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Madan @ Madan Nishad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Pati Nishad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri R.P. Nishad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. A.R. Chaurasia, 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 petitioners with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. registered as case crime no. 0169 of 2018, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., police station Atraulia, District Azamgarh.

¶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 5.3.2019 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 23rd July, 2019.

¶10

The petition for writ is disposed of accordingly.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 11.7.2019 T.S.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan @ Madan Nishad 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

M.K Modi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deen Dayal Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Brij Mohan Lavaniya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Sahodar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Babbu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others