Petitioners sought quashing of F.I.R. under IPC sections regarding alleged offences and prayer for non-arrest. High Court found prima facie cognizable offence disclosed and rejected quashing plea relying on Bhajan Lal principles.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioners directed to apply for anticipatory bail/bail.
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. - 10927 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mayawati @ Parmavati And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipul Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Girish Tiwari
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,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 14.10.2021 registered as Case Crime No.510 of 2021 under Sections 363, 366, 506 IPC, Police Station Swar, District Rampur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
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, 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 petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 22.12.2021 Ashish Pd.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the First Information Report under Section 363, Section 366 and Section 506 of IPC in light of law laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal?
Whether any prima facie case is made out for interference with the F.I.R. under the given facts?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersApplied¶7
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¶7
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mayawati @ Parmavati And Another
State Of U.P.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
