The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed to quash an FIR and prevent the petitioner's arrest. The court held that the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence and no case existed for interference under the Bhajan Lal guidelines.
The writ petition is 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. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10392 of 2021
Petitioner :- Nikhil Katheriya Respondent :- State Of U.P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Goyal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pankaj Dwivedi
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report (FIR) dated 11.10.2021 in Case Crime no.681/2021 under Section 307, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing the FIR, which discloses congnizable offence.
Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and the judgment dated 07.10.2021 in Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati and Anr. vs. State of U.P., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3262 of 2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/ bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 15.12.2021 A. Pandey
Digitally signed by JUSTICE Digitally signed by SUBHASH MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI VIDYARTHI Date: 2021.12.16 15:51:53 IST Date: 2021.12.16 15:52:41 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report disclosing commission of cognizable offence can be quashed under Article 226.
Whether a case has been made out to interfere with the impugned First Information Report.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersReferred¶8
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶8
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati and Anr. vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati and Anr. vs. State of U.P., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3262 of 2021
Nikhil Katheriya
State Of U.P
2 Others
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
