This court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR underSections 498A, 304B, 302 IPC and 3/4 DP Act. Finding no case for indulgence, the court held the petition was unmaintainable.
The instant writ petition has been dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17170 of 2017
Petitioner :- Bupendra @ Aakash Yadav And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Gupta 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. 0513 of 2016 u/s 498A, 304B, 302 IPC and 3/4 DP Act PS Dibiyapur District Auraiya.
We have perused the FIR.
Reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others reported in 2009 (1) SCC 516 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.
(2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.
(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. "
The said decision has also been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Kumari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3700.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments as made in the instant writ petition, the Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of any indulgence is made out and accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.5.2018 SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence warranting the quashing of criminal proceedings.
Whether a civil dispute inherent in the FIR could be a ground to halt criminal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and OthersFollowed¶8
2009 (1) SCC 516 · Who else cites this
Kamlesh Kumari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.Followed¶13
2015 AIR SCW 3700 · Who else cites this
Bupendra @ Aakash Yadav And 4 Others
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Vipin Sinha
Mahboob Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
