The High Court bench rejected the petitioner's criminal writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 295A and 505(2) IPC. The Court held that the FIR was legal and should not be quashed, but directed the petitioner to surrender and obtain bail within ten days.
Petitioner directed to surrender and get bailed out within ten days.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144014-DB
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10691 of 2023
Petitioner :- Faiz Parvez Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shahabuddin,Pramod Bhardwaj Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
Heard Sri Pramod Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
By means of the present criminal writ petition, the petitioner are assailing the legality and validity of FIR dated 21.06.2023 as case crime no. 0132 of 2023, under Sections 295A, 505(2) IPC, P.S. Mughalpura, District Moradabad.
After plain reading of the FIR, we are not inclined to exercise our power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the FIR. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. writ petition is hereby rejected .
However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within the period of ten days and get himself bailed out.
Order Date :- 19.7.2023
Abhishek Sri.
Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to quash the impugned FIR.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Faiz Parvez
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Rahul Chaturvedi
Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
