Dismissed

Manoj Kumar Pandey and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2023CRLP/14695/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR. The court held that the cognizable offence was made out and refused the prayer. It directed the petitioners to file a regular bail application within ten days but expressed no opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of FIR declined and refused. Directio to move regular bail application within ten days.

Manoj Kumar Pandey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192585-DB

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14695 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pandey And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Chauhan,Navaneet Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mahendra Bahadur Singh,Shashank Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶6

Sri Mahendra Bahadur Singh, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 3, which is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 28.02.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 0069 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 392, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Karchana, District Prayagraj.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that the cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and there is no occasion or reason to quash the FIR in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the FIR is declined and refused.

¶11

However, it is open for the petitioners, if so advised, he shall move proper regular bail application before the appropriate forum, within ten days from today.

¶12

It is also made clear that the Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The court concerned is expected to apply

¶13

its robust and judicial discretion in deciding the anticipatory bail application as early as possible.

¶14

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.10.2023 Israr/ RMK

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manoj Kumar Pandey and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Pandey and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Balak Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vijay Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Soni Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Iftekhar Rijwi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tej Singh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shafeek Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others