Dismissed

Anurag Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2018CRLP/21050/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Full Bench dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. Citing precedent, the Court held that since a cognizable offence was evident and no statutory restriction barred police investigation, the prayer for quashing or stay of arrest was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR and stay of arrest rejected; writ petition dismissed.

Anurag Prasad Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21050 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Anurag Prasad Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhijeet Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Abhijeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 02.07.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0134 of 2018, under Sections 279, 338 IPC, Police Station-Mau, District Chitrakoot.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence.He pointed out that the offence in question is bailable one.

¶9

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.

¶10

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner.

¶11

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 3.8.2018 AU

Anurag Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Prasad Shukla 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagmohan Singh H.C.P and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home U.P. Lkw. and 5 Ors.

Shashipal Vs State of U.P.

Dhruv Rathi Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Manish @ Monu and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Namiulla @ Mohammad Naim Ullah Faizi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others