Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 420, 406 IPC. This Court held that the FIR prima facie revealed commission of a cognizable offence and no case was made out for interference, dismissing the writ petition.
No case made out for interference with the impugned FIR; writ petition dismissed.
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. - 6188 of 2021
Petitioner :- Nafees Ahmad Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Pandey
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:
"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR No. 257 of 2021, dated 07.03.2021, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Bulandshahar.
"(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned FIR No. 257 of 2021, dated 07.03.2021, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Bulandshahar".
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 anticipatory bail/ bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 2.8.2021
T.S.
Digitally signed by Justice Surya Digitally signed by Justice Piyush Prakash Kesarwani Agrawal Date: 2021.08.03 10:39:32 IST Date: 2021.08.03 10:43:37 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interference with the impugned FIR is justified under the established judicial precedents.
Whether directions to quash the FIR or prohibit arrest should be issued against the petitioner.
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 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
Nafees Ahmad
State of U.P.
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
