The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an application under S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and an FIR alleging cheating and forgery, holding that material facts required investigation.
Quashing of application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and FIR refused. Petitioner left to apply for bail.
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. - 5486 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vaishno Kaushik Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachida Nand Tiwari,Murli Dhar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A, for the State respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., order dated 17.2.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist, Gorakhpur and impugned FIR dated 17.2.2022 registered as Case Crime No.0019 of 2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Belipar, District Gorakhpur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on false/ vexatious/ mischievous allegations, and no offences are made out against the petitioner.
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. The correctness of the allegations would have to be tested on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation as by insertion of notification No.1058/79-V-1-19-1 (Ka)-20-2018 dated 6th June 2019 and 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 to apply before the competent court for anticipatory
bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the same are left open for the petitioner to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 14.11.2022 AKK
Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR Date: 2022.11.15 17:27:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash the application under S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the impugned FIR.
Whether a case is made out to warrant interference with the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersApplied¶10
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 MaharashtraApplied¶10
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 PradeshApplied¶10
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh, S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3262/2021
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vaishno Kaushik
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Narendra Kumar Johari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
