Dismissed

Mairaj Quraishi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2019A482/22180/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of orders dismissing an application for investigation under S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. The court held that treating the application as a complaint was not illegal, per existing law, and dismissed the petition due to lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

The application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned orders and direction to register FIR was dismissed.

Mairaj Quraishi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22180 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mairaj Quraishi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Pathak,Manoj Kumar Singh,Rakesh Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

¶5

The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 23.3.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 67 of 2019 and order dated 29.1.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in Misc. Case No. 126 of 2019 (complaint case no. 3466 of 2019), under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. (Mairaj Quraishi Vs. Anand Rathi and others), Police Station Bhojpur, district Ghazibad and the court below be directed to lodge FIR against the opposite party no. 2 to 5 in pursuance of the application dated 7.1.2019 filed by the applicant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Further prayer has been made to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 23.3.2019 passed in the aforesaid case.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶7

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant was illegally and arbitrarily treated as complaint vide order dated 29.1.2019. Grievous injuries were caused by the opposite party no. 2 to 5 and there was need of investigation. Concerned Magistrate did not consider these facts. Criminal Revision was also filed against the order dated 29.1.2019 before the Sessions Judge concerned which was also dismissed on 23.3.2019 affirming the order passed on 29.1.2019 by the concerned Magistrate. Referring to the observations made by both the courts below in the impugned orders, it is also argued that orders passed by both the courts need to be set aside and specific direction is needed for registering the FIR and investigation.

¶8

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer.

¶9

In this matter, as is evident from the record that by order dated 29.1.2019 relying upon the law laid down by this Court in Sukhbasi and others Vs. State of U. P. reported in 2007 (59) A..C. 739 concerned Magistrate treated the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as complaint and proceeded to enquire the matter under Chapter XV Cr.P.C. Revisional court while dismissing the revision was also of the view that order passed by the concerned Magistrate is not illegal. If the facts and circumstances available in the present matter are minutely analysed, no illegality, infirmity or perversity is found in the impugned order passed by the courts below. All the facts are well known to the applicant. Thus prayer made in the application is not liable to be allowed.

¶10

The application being devoid of merits is dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 8.7.2019

¶12

Sachdeva

Mairaj Quraishi v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mairaj Quraishi v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Mohammad Waaris @ Golu Chhamman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raeesh Vs State of U.P.

Gangawati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Irfan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Ravindra and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another