High Court held that prima facie commission of cognizable offence is revealed. The writ petition for quashing FIR and preventing arrest was dismissed. Petitioner advised to approach competent court for anticipatory/bail.
Writ petition dismissed. No interim injunction. Party directed to apply for bail.
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. - 8311 of 2021
Petitioner :- Gurucharan Singh @ Mukesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. Shri A.K. Dixit holding brief of Shri Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi appears for the complainant.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 21.08.2021 registered as Case Crime No.0237 of 2021 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. New Agra, Distt. Agra and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR.
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 petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (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 :- 8.10.2021 SP/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition for quashing the FIR and preventing arrest is maintainable.
Whether a case is made out for interference with the impugned first information report under relevant Supreme Court precedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersReferred¶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 MaharashtraReferred¶7
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
Gurucharan Singh @ Mukesh Kumar
State Of U P
3 Others
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Ram Krishna Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
