Dismissed

Shubham Goyal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Oct 2022CRLP/13622/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR and prohibiting arrest was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The bench held that correctness of allegations requires investigation and left the matter open.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing of FIR and issue of mandamus to prevent arrest was dismissed; leave to apply for bail granted.

Shubham Goyal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13622 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Shubham Goyal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Puneet Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Krishna Kumar Singh

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 21.8.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 492 of 2022, under Sections 452, 376, 506 IPC, Police StationKatghar, District- Moradabad (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition).

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest or harass the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report."

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

The writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner

¶13

to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.

¶14

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.10.2022 A.K.Srivastava

¶16

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.10.22 13:10:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shubham Goyal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Goyal v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Smt. Sandhya Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gautam Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dinesh Pandey Alias Dinu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Wahidul Hasan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Arvind Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others