This order disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and directions not to arrest the petitioner. The court held no case made out for interference and disposed of the petition with liberty to apply for bail.
Writ petition disposed of with liberty to apply for anticipatory bail or 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. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6975 of 2022
Petitioner :- Sandeep Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sitaram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.
Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 30.04.2021 registered as Case Crime No.251 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 333, 353, 323, 504, 506, 427, 336, 307 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 3/4 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, P.S. Ghosi, Distt. Mau and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence. He has also submitted that other two co-accused have already been granted bail by the competent court and as such no case is made out for quashing the FIR.
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; M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and the judgment dated 7.10.2021 in Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & Anr. v. State of U.P., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3262 of 2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to apply for anticipatory bail/bail.
Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the aforesaid request of the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy as available to him under the law.
It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
Order Date :- 9.6.2022 SP/
Digitally signed by SURYA PRAKASH Date: 2022.06.09 15:58:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersReferred¶8
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶8
AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & Anr. v. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & Anr. v. State of U.P., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3262 of 2021
Sandeep Chauhan
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
