Dismissed

Jameel Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2022CRLP/13059/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous writ petition sought quashing of an FIR and non-arrest of the petitioners. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding prima facie commission of offence, held that no case was made out for interference. The petition was dismissed, leaving bail matters open for separate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Relief for quashing of FIR and non-arrest dismissed; leave to apply for anticipatory bail granted.

Jameel Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13059 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Jameel Ahmad And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Ji Mishra,Kaushal Kumar Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the impugned FIR dated 01.08.2022, registered as Case Crime No.0644 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

¶8

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 petitioners.

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 petitioners to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.10.2022 ML

¶14

Digitally signed by MUNNA LAL Date: 2022.10.19 18:10:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jameel Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jameel Ahmad and 2 Others 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

Vivek Singh Siddharth and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tinku @ Ajay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rohit Singh @ Arvindra Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Samim Abbas Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mukesh Bansal and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ravi Lal @ Ravi Lal Vishwakarma Vs State of U P and 4 Others