Dismissed

Sharook Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2022CRLP/13951/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR and non-arrest restraint. The High Court held that the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence. Interference was refused as no case was made out. Application for anticipatory bail or bail remains permissible.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; prayer for quashing of FIR denied. Open to apply for bail/anticipatory bail.

Sharook Khan 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. - 13951 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Sharook Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshu Singh,Hemendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Satyam Narayan

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Satyam Narayan, learned counsel for the informant.

¶6

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the impugned FIR dated 06.08.2022, registered as Case Crime No.386 of 2022, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

¶7

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.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Order Date :- 17.11.2022 ML

¶13

Digitally signed by MUNNA LAL Date: 2022.11.19 09:43:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sharook Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharook Khan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zakir Hussain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kapil and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jagdamba Prasad Tiwari and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Julfikar Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravindra Nath Gupta Vs State of U P and 5 Others