The High Court rejected a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and protection against arrest, holding that prima facie a cognizable offence was made out.
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. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5920 of 2021
Petitioner :- Sharad Kumar Paliwal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR dated 13.7.2021 in Crime No. 0187 of 2021 under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 I.PC. Police Station Patiyali, District Kasganj.
b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of FIR dated 13.7.2021 Crime No. 0187 of 2021 under section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 I.PC. Police Station Patiyali, District Kasganj."
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 OnLine 2021 SC 192, 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 anticipatory bail/ bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 4.8.2021
samz
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the FIR or grant protection against arrest in the present criminal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersReferred¶9
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 MaharashtraReferred¶9
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR OnLine 2021 SC 192 · Who else cites this
Sharad Kumar Paliwal And Another
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
