Dismissed

Ramakant Patel and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2020CRLP/6735/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to quash FIR and stay arrest via criminal miscellaneous writ petition. This Court examined if a cognizable offence was discernible from FIR allegations. Finding prima facie an offence existed, the petition dismissed with direction for expedient bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted regarding quashing of FIR; bail prayer reserved for future consideration.

Ramakant Patel and 2 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6735 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ramakant Patel And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 02.06.2020 in Case Crime No. 0118 of 2020 under Sections 452, 353, 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ait and District Jalaun.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed on the basis of false allegations made against them while prima facie no cognizable offence is made out pursuant to the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 4. Hence the FIR deserves to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the F.I.R. cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations. The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56) ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569 , after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the FIR or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.

¶9

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners.

¶10

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶11

However, it is provided that if the petitioners appear or

¶12

surrender before the Court concerned and applies for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered by the courts below expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 7.7.2020 VR/

Ramakant Patel and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Patel and 2 Others 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

Mamta Yadav @ Soni and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anjul Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jai Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Anita Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhagmal Vs State of U P and 2 Others