Writ petitioner, a convict facing a new alleged offense, sought quashing of the FIR. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the petition, finding prima facie evidence of a cognizable offense, citing Supreme Court precedents.
Prayer for quashing of FIR dismissed; petitioner directed to apply for bail before competent court.
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. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18240 of 2022
Petitioner :- Anish Ahmad @ Guddu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Laxmi Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dan Bahadur,Vikas Srivastava
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J. Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A for the State respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 15.11.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 0250 of 2022 under Sections 504, 506, 386, 388, 389 IPC, Police Station Utraon, District Prayagraj.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence.
On specific query, it is not being denied by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a convict, sentenced to life in a case under Section 302 IPC; on being enlarged on bail, the instant crime is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner.
Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. 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.
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.
Order Date :- 3.12.2022
S.Prakash
Digitally signed by SHASHI PRAKASH Date: 2022.12.07 11:50:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the FIR on the facts disclosed in the petition.
Whether the petitioner, being a convict, makes out a case for quashing the FIR.
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
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh)
Anish Ahmad @ Guddu
State Of U.P.
4 Others
Suneet Kumar
Syed Waiz Mian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
