The court denied the prayer to quash the First Information Report as it prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence under Section 379 IPC. The petition was disposed of directing authorities to comply with Section 41-A CrPC if the maximum punishment is below seven years.
Prayer to quash the First Information Report was declined.
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. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 149 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ashutosh Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Shanker Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 30.12.2021, registered as Case Crime No. 849 of 2021, under Section 379 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura.
Petition is opposed by learned AGA.
We have perused the First Information Report, which contains allegation that Cisco Switch 2960 of informant have been stolen on account of which the site itself could not function. The defence of petitioner that he had only acted on the instructions and that he is not involved in any theft can be examined at the stage of investigation/trial. Since the First Information Report prima facie discloses commissioning of a cognizable offence, the prayer made to quash the First Information Report cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, as also in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315. Prayer made in that regard is, therefore, declined.
It is, however, provided that in the event maximum punishment for the offence is below seven years, the authorities shall comply with the provisions contained under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Subject to the observations made above, this writ petition stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 2.3.2022 Anil
Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.03.03 14:47:48 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report should be quashed at the initial stage given the prima facie disclosure of a cognizable offence.
Whether Section 41-A of the CrPC applies to the petitioner based on the maximum punishment for the offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah JellaniFollowed¶8
State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 · Who else cites this
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and OthersFollowed¶8
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashutosh Sharma
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Rajnish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
