Criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR disclosing cognizable offences was dismissed as no prima facie case existed for interference under Bhajan Lal guidelines, leaving petitioner to approach competent court for bail.
Writ petition dismissed with direction to approach competent court for anticipatory 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. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6808 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra,Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mahendra Kumar Pandey,Santosh Singh,Sujeet Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J. Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian,J.
Shri Sujeet Kumar Rai, Advocate, has put his appearance on behalf of the informant.
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 F.I.R. dated 13.05.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 0355 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria.
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. 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.
Order Date :- 1.11.2022 Shivangi
Digitally signed by SHIVANGI YADAV Date: 2022.11.03 10:29:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned High Court should quash the FIR disclosing cognizable offences under provisions like Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersReferred¶9
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 MaharashtraReferred¶9
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 PradeshReferred¶9
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh)
Ajay Kumar Mishra
State Of U.P.
Suneet Kumar
Syed Waiz Mian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
