Petitioners sought to quash an FIR and requested protection under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The High Court refused to quash the FIR, citing Supreme Court precedents that it prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence, though it directed authorities to comply with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. if maximum punishment is below seven years.
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. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2614 of 2022
Petitioner :- Lakshman Vishwakarma And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 12.2.2022, registered as Case Crime No.0026 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC, Police Station Pepeganj, District Gorakhpur.
When the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners confines his relief only to the extent of protection under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further states that petitioner no.3 has otherwise been arrested, and therefore remedy available to him would be availed.
We have perused the First Information Report, which prima facie discloses commissioning of a cognizable offence, and therefore the First Information Report 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, as also in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315. Prayer made in that regard is, therefore, declined.
It is, however, provided that in the event maximum punishment for the offence is below seven years, the authorities shall comply with the provisions contained under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Subject to the observations made above, this writ petition stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 14.3.2022 Anil
Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.03.16 09:53:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report filed under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 308 IPC can be quashed.
Whether protection under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. applies to the petitioners in the given case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah JellaniReferred¶8
State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 · Who else cites this
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and OthersReferred¶8
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315 · Who else cites this
Lakshman Vishwakarma
State of U P
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Rajnesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
