The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejected a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under IPC sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B. The bench held that allegations require testing during investigation and no case was made out for interference.
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. - 11434 of 2022 Petitioner :- Chandrashekhar Takkar And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akshat Sinha,Sanyukta Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard Shri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashutosh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A, for the State respondent nos.1 and 2 and Ms. Sanyukta Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 (informant).
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the impugned FIR dated 24.7.2022 registered as Case Crime No.407 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, Distrit Saharanpur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on false/vexatious/mischievous allegations, and no offences are made out against the petitioners.
Shri G.P. Singh, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence.
The correctness of the allegations would have to be tested on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation as by insertion of notification No.1058/79-V1-19-1 (Ka)-20-2018 dated 6th June 2019 and 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.
It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and the same are left open for the petitioner to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 16.9.2022 RKP
Digitally signed by RAKESH KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.09.16 16:26:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition for quashing of the FIR and non-arrest of petitioners is maintainable in this writ jurisdiction.
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose an offence warranting quashing at this stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersApplied¶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 MaharashtraApplied¶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 PradeshApplied¶8
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 07.10.2021
Chandrashekhar Takkar And Another
State Of U P
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Narendra Kumar Johari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
