Dismissed

Sita Ram Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2023CRLP/16345/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and bail, holding that a cognizable offence was made out on the face of the FIR and the petition did not meet the parameters of Bhajan Lal.

What did the court decide?

The plea for quashing the FIR and not arresting the petitioner was dismissed as the writ petition was devoid of merits.

Sita Ram Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:201217-DB

¶2

Court No. - 45

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16345 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sita Ram Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Maurya,Kamala Shanker Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Bhaskar Srivastava, learned A.G.A for the Staterespondents, and perused the record.

¶8

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the impugned First Information Report dated 2.10.2023, registered as Case Crime No.276 of 2023, under Sections 307, 34 IPC and 3/25 of Arms Act, section 13 of Gambling Act and 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act, Police Station- Kadadham, District Kaushambi. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not committed any offence, he was not present on the spot. The co-accused Shoeb arrested on the spot has falsely implicated the petitioner due to political rivalry, as such the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the petitioner has criminal history of one case of the year 2014, and in any case, the cognizable offence is made out, and the person arrested on the spot has specifically named the petitioner. The huge quantity of recovery was also made from the person arrested on the spot, therefore, cognizable offence is made out.

¶11

Prima-facie , on plain reading of the contents of the impugned FIR, we find that the commission of a cognizable offence is made out. All the arguments being raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is nothing but a defence of the petitioner that cannot be considered for the purpose of quashing of the impugned FIR. The

¶12

petitioner has also failed to bring his case within the parameters of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 . Therefore, the extra-ordinary power vests with this Court cannot be invoked in the facts-circumstances of the case.

¶13

The writ petition is devoid of merits, and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.10.2023 Anil K. Sharma

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sita Ram Pal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Ram Pal 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

Smt. Renu Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HUDA Fatima and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohit and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd Husain and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jayshri and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Daya Shankar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others