Disposed¶10

Jitendra Maurya v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2022CRLP/2994/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused where FIR prima facie discloses cognizable offence (relying on State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) SCC Online SC 315); direction to police to comply with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. where offence punishable with less than seven years; restoration of writ petition and recall of order dated 24.3.2022; Allahabad High Court; Case Crime No. 437 of 2021; Sections 452, 354, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC; Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj; Jitendra Maurya v. State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition restored to its original number and disposed of; prayer to quash the FIR not entertained; police authorities directed to comply with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. during investigation. ¶10

Jitendra Maurya Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition restored to its original number and disposed of; prayer to quash the FIR not entertained; police authorities directed to comply with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. during investigation.

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the prayer to quash the First Information Report registered as Case Crime No. 437 of 2021 under Sections 452, 354, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj, can be entertained. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

On perusal, the First Information Report prima facie discloses commissioning of a cognizable offence.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The prayer to quash the FIR cannot be entertained, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 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.

¶8

Key takeaways

Since the offences alleged in the police report provide for punishment of less than seven years, the police authorities shall comply with the provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. while conducting the investigation.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, JJ.), Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2994 of 2022 (Jitendra Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 others), decided 22.4.2022: The writ petition, earlier ordered on 24.3.2022, was restored on allowing restoration application no. 2 of 2022. Although the petition sought quashing of FIR/Case Crime No. 437 of 2021 under Sections 452, 354, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj, counsel confined relief to protection under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The Court held that the FIR prima facie discloses commissioning of a cognizable offence, so the quashing prayer could not be entertained in view 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. As the offences alleged provide punishment of less than seven years, the police authorities were directed to comply with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. during investigation. Petition disposed of accordingly.

Jitendra Maurya v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Maurya v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satyaveer and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Niraj Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sageer @ Guddu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others