Writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR naming the petitioner in a liquor-related death case was dismissed as no prima facie case against him existed from the FIR alone. However, bail applications were directed to be heard expeditiously within 30 days.
Writ petition dismissed; bail application to be heard expeditiously within 30 days.
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. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9900 of 2019 Petitioner :- Munshi Lal Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mangal Rai,Siddharth Niranjan,Sri Dharampal Singh (Sr. Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. in Case Crime No.225 OF 2019 under Sections 304/272 IPC, read with section 60 (A) of U.P.Excise Act, Police Station Ghatampur, District Kanpur Nagar.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the first information report. The complicity of the petitioner has come into light on the subsequent statement of the witnesses. There is material inconsistency in the prosecution version. The life and liberty of the petitioner cannot be downsized merely on suspicion. From the bald perusal of the first information report, prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Per contra learned AGA contended that there are sufficient material showing the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of said offence. The police has submitted report showing his complicity in three other cases also who is involved along with named accused persons in the business of illicit liquor. On account of consumption of spurious liquor, innocent persons have lost their lives. The petitioner cannot be exculpated from the charges at the pre-trial stage. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to controvert the allegations made against him.
From the perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein, prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interference with the F.I.R. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.
The writ petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.
However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that in case the petitioner appears before the court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail, the same shall be heard and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
It is further provided that if the investigation in this matter has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit of this order.
Order Date :- 16.4.2019 Naim
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR against the petitioner in a case involving illicit liquor and death should be quashed due to lack of prior naming and inconsistency in prosecution evidence.
Whether the life and liberty of the petitioner can be preserved at the pre-trial stage given the allegations of complicity.
Whether bail applications filed by the petitioner should be expedited within a specific timeframe.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Munshi Lal Kushwaha
State Of U.P.
Naheed Ara Moonis
Anil Kumar-IX
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
