A single bench dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The court held that prima facie evidence of a cognizable offence was present, thus no case existed for interference.
Writ petition dismissed; no relief granted to quash the FIR.
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. - 7090 of 2021 Petitioner :- Govind Singh Pal @ Govind Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Bhan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:
"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report dated 29.6.2021 in Case Crime no. 0232 of 2021, under Section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, P.S. Thathiya, District Kannauj. Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents not to give effect to the impugned first information report."
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.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number 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 make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 7.10.2021 Dhirendra/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is maintainable.
Whether a case is made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersFollowed¶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 MaharashtraFollowed¶7
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Govind Singh Pal @ Govind Singh
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Ram Krishna Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
