The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR lodged as a counterblast. The court held that a prima facie case of cognizable offence was made out and the applicant's defence arguments were not grounds for quashing per Bhajan Lal.
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:202693-DB
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15957 of 2023
Petitioner :- Gyanwati And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhay Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
Order Date :- 18.10.2023 Anil K. Sharma
Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an FIR lodged as a counterblast in respect of a pending incident discloses a cognizable offence warranting quashing under Article 226.
Whether personal defence regarding delay in lodging an FIR is a valid ground for invoking extraordinary power to quash criminal proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and othersDistinguished¶10
State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
Gyanwati And 6 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Vivek Kumar Birla
Vinod Diwakar
Anil K. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
