CMP filed seeking quashing of FIR under IPC sections 420, 272, 273 and stay on arrest. Court held no case made out for quashing per Bhajan Lal and cited authorities. Petition dismissed with liberty to apply for bail.
Writ petition for quash of FIR and stay on arrest 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. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1217 of 2023
Petitioner :- Mitrapal And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Shiromani Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Supplementary afÏdavit filed today, placing certified copy of the First Information Report is taken on record.
Heard Shri Ravi Prakash holding brief of Shri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A for the state respondents.
The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 20.12.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 335 of 2022, under Sections 420, 272, 273 IPC, Police Station Kaila Devi, District Sambhal, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that no offence is made out. The petitioners are the authorized licensee to run a dairy and before lodging of the F.I.R firstly, the F.S.L. report is necessary.
Per contra learned A.G.A pointed out that under Section 272 regarding adulteration one First Information Report is already existing against the petitioners and one accused Satpal has already been arrested and the petitioners herein are absconding and also 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 petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 3.2.2023 Rakesh
Digitally signed by :- RAKESH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 420, 272, 273 IPC needs to be allowed.
Whether sufficient grounds exist for quashing the FIR and preventing arrest of the petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersExplained¶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 MaharashtraExplained¶11
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 PradeshExplained¶11
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mitrapal And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Vivek Kumar Birla
Saurabh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
