High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and preventive arrest. The court held that the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence and applied Supreme Court precedents, leaving the contentions open for further proceedings.
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. - 13534 of 2022 Petitioner :- Srikant Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the impugned FIR dated 19.08.2022, registered as Case Crime No.240 of 2022, under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Sewarahi, District Kushi Nagar. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
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 opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses commission of cognizable offence.
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-1-191 (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.
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.
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 :- 15.11.2022 ML
Digitally signed by MUNNA LAL Date: 2022.11.16 17:53:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing of the FIR should be allowed given the prima facie disclosure of a cognizable offence?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar PradeshExplained¶8
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Srikant Singh
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
