Dismissed

Pratap Narayan Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2022CRLP/16554/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Privately framed criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The bench held that the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence. Relying on Bhajan Lal guidelines, the court dismissed the petition, leaving bail as a separate legal right.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the FIR dismissed; petitioner directed to apply for bail before the competent court.

Pratap Narayan Shukla 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. - 16554 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Pratap Narayan Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Shri Yogesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 05.07.2022, registered as Case Crime No.162 of 2022, under Sections 302, 34, 147 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur.

¶7

Shri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions states that against 04 named accused persons, charge-sheet has already been forwarded to the competent court.

¶8

So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, it has been apprised that the investigation is in progress. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant has further opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R., 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

¶10

impugned first information report.

¶11

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed accordingly , leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.

¶12

Order Date :- 9.11.2022 ML

¶13

Digitally signed by MUNNA LAL Date: 2022.11.11 14:59:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pratap Narayan Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap Narayan Shukla 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

Yogesh Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lakhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pradeep Pathak and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramdass and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sumit Kumar Gupta @ Sumit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another