The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and an interim stay. The court held that the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence and that legal principles in cited precedents precluded quashing the proceedings or granting interim relief.
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. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 292 of 2021
Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajjan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Sri Rajjan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
This writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of FIR dated 8.2.2019 lodged against the petitioner in respect of Crime No. 29 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Thariyoan, District Fatehpur.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged affairs and he was not working as the Manager of the Bank. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel further submits that if FIR is not quashed, at least by way of an interim order, till filing of charge sheet, petitioner be protected so that he may not suffer any injury.
On the other hand, opposing the submission, it has been argued by the State counsel that considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner, prima facie, cognizable offence is made out. He submits that anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner has also been rejected by this Court. He further submits that once prima facie cognizable offence is made out, FIR cannot be quashed and no interim relief can be granted. We have heard the parties.
From the contents of FIR, cognizable offence appears to have been made out against the petitioner and the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner may be a good defence but not substantial enough on which basis FIR can be quashed. Further considering the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha vs. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) , we find it difficult to quash the proceedings.
So far as interim relief is concerned, once we have declined to interfere in the writ petition, question of granting any interim relief to the petitioner, does not arise and this has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, 2017 (2) SCC 779 and the order dated 19.11.2020 passed by the Apex Court in the case of Samiksha Singh @ Nikki vs State of U.P. and other in
Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 4650 of 2020.
The petition has no substance and the same is dismissed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court, Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner(s) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall made a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 8.2.2021 RK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the FIR against the petitioner under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of IPC.
Whether interim relief should be granted pending the filing of the charge sheet.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha vs. State of U.P.Explained¶9
Ajit Singh @ Muraha vs. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and othersExplained¶10
State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, 2017 (2) SCC 779 · Who else cites this
Samiksha Singh @ Nikki vs State of U.P. and otherExplained¶10
Samiksha Singh @ Nikki vs State of U.P. and other SLP (Criminal) No. 4650 of 2020
Harish Chandra Maurya
State Of U.P.
Pritinker Diwaker
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
