The Court dismissed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR. Noting the prima facie disclosure of a cognizable offence, the Court held that no case for interference was made out under established precedents.
Petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to apply for anticipatory bail or bail from competent court.
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. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14591 of 2022
Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J. Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 27.08.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 562 of 2022, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence.
Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. 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.
Order Date :- 2.11.2022 Mukesh Kr.
Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR Date: 2022.11.02 16:29:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to quash the FIR after prima facie finding of cognizable offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersReferred¶8
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶8
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶8
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh)
Atul Kumar Jain
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Suneet Kumar
Syed Waiz Mian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
