In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the Court rejected the plea to quash an FIR under Sections 376-D IPC, 342 IPC, 504 IPC, 506 IPC and POCSO. The allegations were held to disclose cognizable offences, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.
Rejected the plea to quash the FIR; writ petition dismissed.
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. - 1336 of 2022
Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Chandra,Sanjay Kumar Nigam
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 instant petition seeks quashing of the impugned F.I.R. dated 16.12.2021, registered as Case Crime No. 415 of 2021, under Section 376-D, 342, 504, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Phoolpur, District Prayagraj.
The allegations made in the First Information Report clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences and the allegations are serious in nature. Therefore, prayer of the petitioners to quash the First Information Report is completely misconceived and is rejected.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to apply for bail/ anticipatory bail.
Order Date :- 18.2.2022 Nitendra
Digitally signed by NITENDRA TIWARI Date: 2022.02.18 16:38:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR disclosing cognizable offences should be quarshed under Section 482 CrPC.
Pramod Kumar and 3 Others
State Of U.P. and 3 Others
Anjani Kumar Mishra
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
