The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The court noted petitioners had concealed their invocation of anticipatory bail remedies. Finding a prima facie case, the court refused to interfere, leaving substantive contentions open for future 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. - 14709 of 2022
Petitioner :- Mahipal And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jitendra Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A, for the State respondents.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the impugned FIR dated 16.9.2022 registered as Case Crime No.0205 of 2022 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC Police Station Chhajlet, District-Moradabad. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the informant apprise the Court that just before filing of the present writ petition, petitioners have already invoked the remedy as available under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and without disclosing the same, present writ petition has been preferred. Petitioners have not come with clean hands before this Court and he has concealed the material facts.
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.
In such circumstances, this Court is not required to interfere in the matter. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners 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 n.u.
Digitally signed by NASEEM UDDIN Date: 2022.11.16 15:54:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned FIR despite allegations that petitioners used anticipatory bail incorrectly as a ground?
Whether a prima facie case of cognizable offence justifies dismissal of the writ petition quashing the FIR?
Whether petitioners approaching the court without clean hands by concealing invocation of Section 438 Cr.P.C. justifies refusal to interfere?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersReferred¶9
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¶9
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¶9
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahipal And 8 Others
State Of U P And 2 Others
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Narendra Kumar Johari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
