The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash an F.I.R. The court held that the F.I.R. prima facie revealed a cognizable offence and no case was made out for interference under established Supreme Court precedents.
Petition dismissed; petitioner left open to approach competent court for 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. - 12224 of 2021
Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Singh And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gauri Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed with prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 11.11.2021 bearing Case Crime No. 284 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 352, 323, 324, 307, 302 IPC, Police Station Surir, District Mathura.
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 petitioner to apply before the competent court for bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 Jaswant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report filed under the cited IPC sections exposes the petitioner to a cognizable offence warranting quashing.
Whether the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited precedents permits interference with the impugned F.I.R.
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
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Praveen Kumar Singh And 9 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
