Court dismissed this criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and direction not to arrest petitioners. The court held that prima facie, the FIR discloses a cognizable offence and no case was made out for interference.
Prayer for quashing of FIR was dismissed. Direction not to arrest was denied.
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. - 12466 of 2021
Petitioner :- Smt. Himanshu Kaushik And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brajesh Kumar Solanki 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.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 30.11.2021 registered as Case Crime No.1668 of 2021 under Sections 147, 307, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Distt. Bulandshahar and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable 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; M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and the judgment dated 7.10.2021 in Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & Anr. v. 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 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 SP/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a case for quashing of the FIR under Sections 147, 307, 323, 506 IPC and a direction not to arrest the petitioners.
Whether the facts discloses commission of a cognizable offence attracting interference in the FIR.
Whether the provisions of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal case applies to the instant case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersRelied on¶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 MaharashtraRelied on¶8
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & Anr. v. State of U.P.Relied on¶8
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & Anr. v. State of U.P., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3262 of 2021
Smt. Himanshu Kaushik And 3 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
