Disposed

Amar Jit Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2019CRLP/6480/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court did not quash the FIR filed against the petitioner for allegedly committing offences under IPC Sections 394, 332, and 353. Instead, the Court directed that no coercive action be taken if the petitioner surrenders and applies for bail within two months, relying on specified precedents.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action against petitioner for two months if he surrenders and applies for bail by then; FIR not quashed.

Amar Jit Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6480 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Amar Jit Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Raj Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No. 0022 of 2019, under Sections 394, 332 and 353 I.P.C., P.S. Gahmar, district-Ghazipur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶9

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶10

However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case, petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within two months from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail 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. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of two months from today or till petitioner surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against petitioner. However, in case, petitioner does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 3.4.2019 Faridul

Amar Jit Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Jit Yadav 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

Bahadur @ Ram Bahadur and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sameek Yadav Alias Sameek Alias Chilli Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amit Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhawana Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kamleshwar Dayal Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others