Dismissed

Yashpal Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2020CRLP/3491/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and direction not to arrest the petitioner. The court held that investigation materials must be examined for altern ate remedies like bail.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without prejudice to right to apply for anticipatory bail; contention on allegations left open for later proceeding.

Yashpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3491 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Yashpal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamesh Kumar Arya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Arya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents concerned, not to arrest the petitioner, with a further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 11.1.2013 registered as Case Crime No.09 of 2013, under Section 409, I.P.C., P.S. Thakurdwara, District Moradabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR has been lodged on false/vexatious/mischievous allegations, no offences are made out, FIR be quashed.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the submission.

¶9

The correctness of the allegations would have to be tested on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation as by insertion of notification No.1058/79-V-1-191 (Ka)-20-2018 dated 6th June 2019, an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner to seek for an anticipatory bail.

¶10

We deem it appropriate to dismiss this petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to apply for anticipatory bail/ bail as he may be advised.

¶11

The writ petition is dismissed .

¶12

It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised which are left open for the petitioner to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.

¶13

The party shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card).

¶14

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 29.9.2020 T. Sinha

Yashpal Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashpal Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shashank Balasaheb Bhapkar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bismillah and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Murti and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mitthu Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Rihes and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another