Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Satyapal And Another vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|28 May, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13848 of 2018 Petitioner :- Satyapal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No. 305 of 2018 u/s 363, 366, 504, 506 IPC PS Dataganj District Badaun.
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that both the petitioners have been named in the FIR; girl has gone willingly with co-accused Kamraj; the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; entire family members have been implicated in the present case on the basis of general allegations; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner(s) in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.
However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case, petitioners appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till petitioners surrender and apply for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against petitioners. However, in case, petitioners do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018/SP
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Satyapal And Another vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
28 May, 2018
Judges
  • Vipin Sinha
Advocates
  • Anurag Kumar Pandey