The High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and no case was made out for interference, citing Supreme Court precedents.
The writ petition for quashing of the FIR was dismissed.
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. - 19161 of 2022
Petitioner :- Rajendra Pratap Singh @ Kallu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijai Kumar Tripathi,Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
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 16.12.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0576 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 65, 66C, 66D, 72 I.T. Act, Police Station Kareli, District Prayagraj.
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 petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 19.12.2022 Shivangi
Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the FIR alleging offences under IPC and I.T. Act due to lack of prima facie evidence of cognizable offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersExplained¶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 MaharashtraExplained¶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 PradeshExplained¶8
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021
Rajendra Pratap Singh @ Kallu
State Of U.P.
Suneet Kumar
Syed Waiz Mian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
