Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2022CRLP/16043/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and an order not to arrest, the High Court held that a prima facie cognizable offence was made out. The court reiterated that interference requires no discernible offence or statutory restriction, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing FIR and direction not to arrest was dismissed. Leave to apply for bail remains open.

Kapil and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16043 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Kapil And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Chandra Gupta,Shubham Prakash Gupta

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Gupta

¶5

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

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA, Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant and perused the impugned F.I.R, as well as material brought on record.

¶7

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 01.10.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 0477 of 2022 under Section 376/ 506/ 328 IPC, P.S. Transport Nagar, Distt. Meerut and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioner no1 has already been arrested and as such he is not pressing the relief for petitioner no.1.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against them are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioners, hence, the same be quashed.

¶10

Learned A.G.A, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, which discloses cognizable offence. He has further submitted that truthfulness of allegations and establishment of guilt take place, when the investigation is done or trial proceeds. Probability, reliability or genuineness cannot be looked under Art.226 of the Constitution. The FIR can only be quashed in a writ jurisdiction, if the FIR does not discloses commission of offence and that too prior to framing of charges. As such it is submitted that no interfere is required in the matter.

¶11

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the

¶12

allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.

¶13

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R or staying the arrest of the petitioners.

¶14

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 16.11.2022 SP/

¶16

Digitally signed by SURYA PRAKASH Date: 2022.11.18 11:00:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Nahar Singh @ Nem Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Srikant Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahipal and 8 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

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

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

Smt Sneh Lata Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others