Writ petition for quashing FIR under IPC Sections 420, 406, 304, 506 dismissed. Court held prima facie cognizable offence disclosed with no case for interference.
Prayer for quashing of FIR dismissed.
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. - 8324 of 2022
Petitioner :- Shuaib Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arif Ikbal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J. Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian,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 F. I. R. dated 12.2.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 16 of 2022, under Sections-420, 406, 304 and 506 I. P. C., Police StationChamanganj, district-Kanpur Nagar.
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 :- 22.8.2022 HR
Digitally signed by HEMANT RANJAN Date: 2022.08.25 10:19:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR disclosing cognizable offences warrants quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersApplied¶8
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¶8
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¶8
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021
Shuaib Ahmad
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Suneet Kumar
Syed Waiz Mian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
