In Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18261 of 2022, the Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of an FIR disclosing cognizable offences, citing Supreme Court precedents without finding any basis for interference.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioners 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. - 18261 of 2022 Petitioner :- Munavar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J. Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian,J.
Sri Ankur Singh Kushwaha, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 3.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A for the State respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 1.11.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 0446 of 2022, under Sections 452, 307, 354(Kha), 500, 504, 506 IPC and Section 67a I.T. Act, Police Station Bhawan, District Shamli.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence.
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 petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 3.12.2022 Arif
Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ARIF Date: 2022.12.06 10:23:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the FIR discognizable offences.
Whether any case is made out for interference with the impugned FIR.
Whether bail can be claimed from the competent court as permitted under law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersReferred¶8
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¶8
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¶8
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021
Munavar And 3 Others
State Of U.P.
Respondent no. 3
Suneet Kumar
Syed Waiz Mian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
