This High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR. The Court held a cognizable offence was made out and declined to quash the document, while permitting the petitioner to move for anticipatory bail.
Prayer for quashing the FIR was declined; petitioner advised to move anticipatory bail application.
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:191025-DB
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15551 of 2023
Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Singh Sengar,Vijay Singh Sengar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondents and perused the record.
The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 19.04.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 159 of 2023, under Sections 411, 413, 414 I.P.C., Police Station Bidhuna, District Auraiya.
The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and he has fled away from the spot. His name was disclosed by two arrested coaccused persons from whose possession motorcycles were recovered. The complicity of the petitioner cannot be ruled out as per the F.I.R.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that the cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and there is no occasion or reason to quash the FIR in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the FIR is declined and refused.
However, it is open for the petitioner, if so advised, he shall move proper anticipatory bail application before the appropriate forum, within ten days from today which shall be decided in accordance with law.
It is also made clear that the Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The court concerned is expected to apply its robust and judicial discretion in deciding the anticipatory bail application as early as possible.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.10.2023 Rmk.
Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR should be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India given the complicity of the petitioner as per the FIR.
What advice should be given to the petitioner regarding anticipatory bail if the writ petition is dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sandeep Kumar
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Rahul Chaturvedi
Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
