Petition sought quashing of an FIR. Court found the FIR discloses a cognizable offence and refused quashing. However, granted one month to surrender for bail consideration.
No coercive action against petitioners for one month; time allowed to surrender and apply for bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5922 of 2019
Petitioner :- Vinod And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari for the petitioners, Sri P. K. Singh for respondent-3 and A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 20.2.2019, in Case Crime No. 0140 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 384, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Naubasta, district Kanpur Nagar.
A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that it discloses cognizable offence, as such, it is not liable to be quashed.
However, it is observed that in case the petitioners surrender before the court below within one month from today and apply for bail, the same 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., 2004 (57) ALR 290 and affirmed by Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) .
For a period of one month from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.
It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the petitioner s to surrender before the Court below.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of .
Order Date :- 5.3.2019 Jaideep/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR disclosing a cognizable offence is liable to be quashed.
Whether petitioners are granted a specific period to surrender and seek bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Affirmed¶8
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Affirmed¶8
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinod And 3 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Ram Surat Ram Maurya
Anil Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
