Dismissed

Ashok Yadav @ Raju and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2023CRLP/12510/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the Court dismissed the plea for quashing of an FIR alleging murder and perjury, holding that the allegations prima facie disclose a cognicable offence. The Court also declined the request for non-arrest.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing of FIR and non-arrest was dismissed; the petitioner was directed to approach the competent court for bail if permitted by law.

Ashok Yadav @ Raju and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167371-DB

¶2

Court No. - 45

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12510 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Ashok Yadav @ Raju And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh,Vikas Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶6

1 . Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A for the State respondents.

¶7

2 . The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 25.5.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 120 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Lar, District Deoria. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶8

3 . Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and no offence is made out against the petitioner. It is submitted that missing report of wife was lodged by the petitioner no. 1, which was being investigated, however, father of missing wife of petitioner no. 1 has lodged the first information report, which is mala fide in nature.

¶9

4 . Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence. He further submitted that heinous offence of murder has taken place and investigation is going on, therefore, cognizable offence has been made out and there is no scope of interference in the impugned order.

¶10

5 . Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence.

¶11

6 . 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.

¶12

7 . 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.

¶13

Order Date :- 21.8.2023 Abhishek

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashok Yadav @ Raju and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Yadav @ Raju and 2 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Pathak Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Om Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishna Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Malay Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amar Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Qayyum Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others