The Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR cognizable under Sections 498-A IPC and others was dismissed by finding prima facie commission of a cognizable offence. The court held no case was made out for interference.
Quashing of the FIR dated 06.11.2022 was denied.
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. - 19221 of 2022
Petitioner :- Annu Pandey And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Shankar Tripathi,Barun Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Saurabh Sharma
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J. Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned A.G.A for the State respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 06.11.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 0238 of 2022 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Daraganj, 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(s) to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law.
Order Date :- 20.12.2022 Mukesh Kr.
Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any case made out for quashing the first information report registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 304-B IPC.
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
_Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh_
Annu Pandey and Another
State of U.P. and 3 Others
Suneet Kumar
Syed Waiz Mian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
