Petitioner challenged an FIR during ongoing anticipatory bail proceedings. Court held no case for quashing as FIR disclosed cognizable offence. Petitioner withdrew petition with liberty to apply for regular 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. - 7090 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Ragini Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Shantam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Vijay Shantam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A for the State-respondent.
This writ petition has been filed praying fro the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 14.12.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 337 of 2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B, 354 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 P.S. Kamla Nagar, District- Agra;
(ii) Issue writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to include the four affidavits (Annexure no. 1) given by the neighbours who are the eye witnesses to the incident in the investigation pending in Case Crime No. 337 of 2021 under Sections 498A, 323, 304-B, 354 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 P.S. Kamla Nagar, District- Agra;
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, which discloses cognizable offence.
It transpires from the record that the petitioner has filed a Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C.No. 1855 of 2022 before the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the same has been rejected vide order dated 14.03.2022.
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 regular 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 Ishan
Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.06.10 14:17:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned F.I.R. disclosing a cognizable offence warrants quashing or mandamus for inclusion of affidavits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersReferred¶11
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¶11
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & Anr. v. State of U.P.Referred¶11
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & Anr. v. State of U.P., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3262 of 2021
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Ragini Devi
State of U.P.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
