Dismissed

Manish Agrawal and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2023CRLP/11728/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471. It held that allegations disclosing serious cognizable offences are not to be dragged into a quashing plea and the petitioner's defence regarding document forgery is inadmissible in this stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to apply for bail/anticipatory bail.

Manish Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:171294-DB

¶2

Court No. - 43

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11728 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Manish Agrawal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Namit Kumar Sharma,Gunjan Sharma,Sr. Advocate

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pankaj Sharma,Subedar Mishra

¶6

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶7

Short counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed in the Court today are taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 03.07.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No.394 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Mathura.

¶10

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation in the F.I.R. is regarding the release of vehicle involved in an accident on the basis of forged document. It is contended that the petitioners had not filed these documents and these documents had been produced by the informant and his counsel etc. in a claim petition relating to accident.

¶11

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, we find that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are their defence, which cannot be looked into while dealing with a writ petition seeking quashing of a first information report.

¶12

Moreover, the allegations made in the First Information Report clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences and the allegations are serious in nature. Therefore, prayer of the petitioner to quash the First Information Report is completely misconceived

¶13

and is rejected.

¶14

The writ petition is therefore dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to apply for bail/anticipatory bail. Order Date :- 24.8.2023 Bhanu

¶15

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish Agrawal and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Agrawal and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hriday Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Shubhi Dubey and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sushil Kumar Shukla and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shaukat Ali and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others