Dismissed

Yuvraj Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Mar 2022CRLP/2330/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the prayer to quash an FIR alleging use of filthy language and physical intimidation. Citing precedents, the Court held that the FIR discloses a cognizable offence, and admissibility of defence allegations must be examined during investigation.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the First Information Report was declined; petition disposed off with liberty to place materials before the Investigating Officer.

Yuvraj Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2330 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Yuvraj Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajatshatru Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report registered as Case Crime No.0192 of 2021, under Sections 504, 507 IPC and 67A of I.T. Act, Police Station- Atarsuiya, District- Prayagraj.

¶6

It is stated that the F.I.R. contains false averments and on account of dispute between informant and the petitioner, the petitioner has been falsely implicated.

¶7

The petition is being opposed by learned A.G.A.

¶8

The first information report refers to use of filthy language against the informant's daughter apart from extending threads to her. In such circumstances, prayer made to quash first information report can not be accepted particularly as prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed in the F.I.R.

¶9

The correctness or otherwise of the allegation made in F.I.R. need not be examined by us in view of the law settled inasmuch as such issues are required to be examined at the stage of investigation. The petitioner shall be at liberty to place all materials in support of his defence before the Investigating Officer.

¶10

Since the First Information Report prima facie discloses commissioning of cognizable offence, therefore, it cannot be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs.State of Maharashtra and others; (2021) SCC Online SC 315 . Prayer for quashing the F.I.R. is declined.

¶11

In case, the offences alleged in the F.I.R. provide for maximum sentence upto seven years, the provisions of Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be complied with.

¶12

Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed off .

¶13

Order Date :- 9.3.2022 Haseen U.

¶14

Digitally signed by HASEENUDDIN Date: 2022.03.10 15:19:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yuvraj Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvraj Yadav 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

Brahm Singh Nagar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hari Ram Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Istekar Alias Iftekhar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rekha Gupta Alias Anmol Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suresh Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nazim Alias Shannu Khan Vs State of U P and 2 Others