This Kerala HC Criminal Misc. Writ Petition petitioned for quashing of an FIR alleged to be a counterblast. The bench dismissed the petition, upholding that the FIR contained ingredients of a cognizable offence, without prejudice to bail rights.
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. - 12918 of 2021
Petitioner :- Aakil @ Aakil Rajpoot Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned FIR has been lodged as a counterblast, once the petitioner's application under Section 156 (3) was ordered to be treated as a complaint.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the allegations in the FIR constitute or contain the ingredients of a cognizable offence. The FIR therefore cannot be quashed.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to apply for bail/anticipatory bail.
Order Date :- 28.1.2022 Mayank
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR lodged as a counterblast can be quashed.
Aakil @ Aakil Rajpoot
State Of U.P
Anjani Kumar Mishra
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
