Dismissed

Pragi Lal Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2022CRLP/16762/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition seeking quashing of the impugned FIR. The court held that the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offense and decisions of Supreme Court instances do not support interference at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for quashing of FIR and prayer not to arrest the petitioner were dismissed.

Pragi Lal Kushwaha 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. - 16762 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Pragi Lal Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ray Sahab Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

¶6

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the impugned FIR dated 12.09.2022, registered as Case Crime No.0255 of 2022, under Sections 306, 120-B of IPC, Police Station Badagaon, District Jhansi. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on false/vexatious/mischievous allegations, and no offences are made out against the petitioner.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, 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 impugned first information report.

¶10

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 and in accordance with law.

¶11

It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions

¶12

raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the same are left open for the petitioner to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 10.11.2022 ML

¶14

Digitally signed by MUNNA LAL Date: 2022.11.11 15:40:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pragi Lal Kushwaha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pragi Lal Kushwaha 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

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

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

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

Mohammad Suhel (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhishek Kashyap and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mukesh Patel and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others