Dismissed

Mithai Lal Prajapati and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2022CRLP/12889/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of an FIR sections 376, 506, 120-B IPC. The court held no case for quashing, citing Bhajan Lal and other precedents. The petitioners were left to apply for bail in the concerned court.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of FIR under Sections 376, 506, 120-B IPC and non-arrest was dismissed.

Mithai Lal Prajapati and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12889 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Mithai Lal Prajapati And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shree Prakash Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A, for the State respondents.

¶6

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the impugned FIR dated 20.08.2022, registered as Case Crime No.195 of 2022, under Sections 376, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Mirzamurad, District Varanasi. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

¶7

Learned 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 petitioner.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses commission of cognizable offence.

¶9

Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of 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-1-19-1 (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.

¶10

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.

¶11

It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions

¶12

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.

¶13

Order Date :- 11.10.2022 ML

¶14

Digitally signed by MUNNA LAL Date: 2022.10.12 17:33:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mithai Lal Prajapati and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithai Lal Prajapati and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shafvan @ Bahar Ahmad and 3 Others Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt.Sanya Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Faisal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shashi Prakash Gautam and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others