The High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The Court clarified that no interim protection was granted, criticized an affidavit for misleading language, and held the petition lacked merit due to rejection of anticipatory bail and lack of cooperation.
No relief; petition for quashing of FIR 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. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8289 of 2020
Petitioner :- Khemraj Singh @ Tillu Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Affidavit of compliance filed by learned Government Advocate and supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner are taken on record.
Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.
been graced with an interim protection granted by this Hon'ble Court.
" That it is pertinent to mention herein that the charge sheet has been submitted (charge sheet no.585 of 2020 dated 29.07.2020) in criminal case in question against the accused persons namely, Vijay Kumar, Smt. Babli, Amit Kumar and Mohan, but the investigation against the petitioner is still pending since he has evaded arrest. An application for the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was moved, but during its pendency, the petitioner was graced by an interim protection granted by this Hon'ble Court."
Order Date :- 9.11.2020 Ashutosh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of quash under Article 226 can be entertained where the anticipatory bail application has been rejected and the petitioner is evading investigation.
Whether there is any statutory restriction or lack of cogent offence discernible that warrants interference with the investigation or arrest order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Followed¶22
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Followed¶22
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶22
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Khemraj Singh @ Tillu Chauhan
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Naqvi
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
