The single judge court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge-sheet and cognizance order.
No relief; application for quashing rejected.
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. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17182 of 2023
Applicant :- Firoj Ahmad And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tripathi,Shashi Shankar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pramod Kumar Mishra,Suneel Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
has been registered under Sections 336, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. for causing hurt.
(Prashant Kumar, J.)
Order Date :- 6.6.2023 Ruhi H.
Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the FIR and cognizance order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as a counter blast in civil litigation.
Whether the prima facie case for cognizance established by the Magistrate precludes the grant of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶12
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 supp, (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
Amanullah & Anr vs. State of Bihar & OthersApplied¶13
Amanullah & Anr vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 699 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Firoj Ahmad And 3 Others
State of U.P.
Prashant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
