- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition, petitioners is seeking quashing of first information report dated 30.06.2015, registered as Case Crime No. 209 of 2015, under Sections 333, 332, 353, 308, 336, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Jaunpur, District Azamgarh. From a perusal of first information report and taking the allegations contained therein to be true, it cannot be said that commission of a cognizable offence is not made out. Despite repeated query, learned counsel for the petitioners also could not show that no offence whatsoever has been made out in the aforesaid first information report. Therefore, question of its quashing in the limited scope of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution does not arise.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Apex Court's decision in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. : 1994 Cri.L.J. 1981 : 1994 (4) SCC 260, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. : 2009 (4) SCC 437 and this Court's decision in Smt. Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., : 2005 (1) AWC 416 and further contended that direction be issued for consideration of petitioners' bail application on the same day though admittedly till date no bail application has been filed by petitioners before the concerned Magistrate. There is no averment in the entire writ petition that he has moved bail application or propose to move any such application today or tomorrow but the concerned court is not ready to hear the matter expeditiously. He also requested that till then arrest of petitioners be stayed and placed certain orders of this Court wherein such directions have been issued. He pointed out that hundreds and thousands such orders have been passed by this Court and, therefore, following the principle of parity similar direction must be issued in this case also.;