Petitioner challenged an FIR under multiple sections including IPC and SC/ST Act, seeking quashing and a direction not to arrest.
Petition dismissed. It is left open for petitioner to apply for anticipatory bail/bail before competent court.
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. - 11841 of 2022
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Upadhyay,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Atul Pandey,Siddharth Srivastava
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
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 First Information Report dated 4.7.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 6 of 2022, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506, 315, 419, 420 IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, DistrictAzamgarh (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest or harass the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on false/vexatious/mischievous allegations and no offences are made out against the petitioner.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 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-V-1-191 (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.
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.
It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner 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 :- 20.10.2022 A.K.Srivastava
Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.10.22 13:12:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR disclosing a cognizable offence should be quashed.
Whether to grant anticipatory bail or leave the matter open for further proceedings.
Whether the allegations in the FIR are false or vexatious.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021Referred¶11
Arvind Kumar Tiwari
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
