The court dismissed the petition to quash an FIR alleging rape and offences under the SC/ST Act, holding that an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence cannot be quashed. The court noted allegations of rape were heinous and investigation was pending.
Prayer to quash the First Information Report is 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. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 285 of 2022
Petitioner :- Jasveer And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Upadhyay., learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
This petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the First Information Report in Case Crime No.602 of 2021, under Section 376-D I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that present FIR is only a counterblast to the FIR which has been lodged by the petitioner against the informant. FIR impugned is delayed and no reason has been given for this delay. No chargesheet has been submitted. The motive for lodging the FIR is to harass the petitioners and to pressurize them to withdraw their FIR.
Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the bail application of the petitioners and submits that on perusal of F.I.R., cognizable offence is made out and offence is very serious in nature. The petitioners are alleged to have raped the informant. Investigation is going on and evidence is yet to be come.
Considering the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned AGA and from perusal of FIR, it is clear that the petitioners are alleged to have committed rape which is heinous in nature and clearly a cognizable offence. At this stage, it cannot be considered whether present FIR has been lodged as a counter blast. From perusal of the averments made in the report, it cannot be said that a cognizable offence is not disclosed. As such, in view of the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, 2017 (2) SCC 779 , it is settled that once First Information Report discloses cognizable offence, the FIR cannot be quashed and no further relief can be granted.
In view of the law settled by the Supreme Court on the point in issue, no relief can be granted to the petitioners
Moreover, correctness of the allegation made against the petitioners is not to be tested in writ jurisdiction as it would depend upon the material collected during the course of investigation and the evidence led in trial. Therefore, on the grounds taken, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the first information report cannot be accepted.
The petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to seek for bail or anticipatory bail as per advice.
Order Date :- 18.1.2022 Nitin Verma
Digitally signed by NITIN KUMAR VERMA Date: 2022.01.19 13:53:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report should be quashed as it is alleged to be a counterblast and delayed.
Whether the serious nature of the alleged cognizable offence precludes quashing the FIR at this stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and othersApplied¶10
The State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, 2017 (2) SCC 779 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jasveer And Another
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Anjani Kumar Mishra
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
