The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The court held that the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence, applying established Supreme Court precedents, and refused interference.
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. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10508 of 2021
Petitioner :- Kailash Chandra Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A for the State respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 22.4.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 110 of 2021 under Sections 504, 506, 306 IPC, Police Station Amroha Dehat, District Amroha.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence. Learned A.G.A. has also informed that his Anticipatory Bail No. 13992 of 2021 has admittedly already been dismissed.
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 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.12.2021 Lalit Shukla
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition for quashing the FIR disclosing cognizable offences?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersApplied¶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 MaharashtraApplied¶8
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar PradeshApplied¶8
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kailash Chandra Gupta
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Birla
Chandra Kumar Rai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
