The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 306, 406, and 504 IPC, holding that no case for interference existed as the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence.
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. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11049 of 2022
Petitioner :- Mahipal And 2 Others Respondent :- The State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J. Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A for the State respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 27.07.2022, registered as Case Crime No. 177 of 2022, under Sections-306, 406, 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Awagarh, District-Etah.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence.
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 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021 , 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 petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 29.8.2022 Deepak/
Digitally signed by SHIVANGI YADAV Date: 2022.08.30 11:22:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR disclosing a cognizable offence requires quashing under Article 226.
Whether anticipatory bail is a permissible alternative to quashing in this instance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersReferred¶8
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¶8
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶8
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021
Mahipal And 2 Others
The State Of Up And 2 Others
Suneet Kumar
Syed Waiz Mian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
