The High Court refused to quash an FIR alleging offenses under the IPC and Criminal Law Amendment Act against the petitioner. The court noted that investigation revealed the petitioner's complicity in the informant's statement and held no case for interference existed.
Petition for quashing of the FIR dismissed; investigation to continue.
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. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2313 of 2019
Petitioner :- Shan Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned AGA for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 28.11.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 1286 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 352, 504 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station New Agra, District Agra.
The allegation in the first information report is to the effect that the informant in the evening of 28.11.2018 saw 10-12 unknown persons in altercation with each other and when he requested them not to use abusive language at that place, they got infuriated and, one of them, fired at the informant. It is stated that the fire hit the back of informant's brother-in-law, after ricocheting from the surface. The allegation is that he is in position to identify the accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the first information report; that it is not disclosed as to who fired on the brother-in-law of the informant; that the injury sustained by the brother-in-law of the informant is simple in nature; and it does not appear to be a fire arm injury. It has been submitted that under the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to protection.
As to what offence would ultimately be made out against the accused, is to be considered after the matter is thoroughly investigated and the entire evidence/material is received. However, from a perusal of the first information report, it cannot be said that no offence is made out.
On the last date, we had requested the learned AGA to obtain the case diary. The case diary has been produced, from which it appears that in the statement of the informant, the complicity of the petitioner alongwith one Abhay Yadav is disclosed.
Under the circumstances, no case for quashing the first information report or to interfere in the investigation is made out.
The petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 11.2.2019 Lbm/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a prima facie case to quash the First Information Report alleging the petitioner's complicity in the FIR.
Whether the petitioner's right to protection excludes his identification in an FIR.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shan Gupta
State Of U.P.
Manoj Misra
Vivek Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
