Dismissed

Shashi Kant Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2023CRLP/16099/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, the Allahabad High Court examined the vague allegations. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding the threshold for quashing, the court held that a prima facie case existed and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the FIR and non-arrest of the petitioner prayed for and dismissed.

Shashi Kant Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:203429-DB

¶2

Court No. - 45

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16099 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Rajpoot Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Meenendra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Meenendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A for the State respondents.

¶7

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 17.08.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 0123 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Dakor, District Jalaun. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has not committed any offence and there is no allegation against the petitioner. It is stated that registration of the tractor is in the name of one Bramha son of Chhavi Lal and he is the real owner of the tractor, it is not mentioned as to how the sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- was given, the FIR is absolutely vague.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA submits that tractor was recovered from the house of the petitioner as such cognizable offence has been made out.

¶10

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

¶11

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

The present petition is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.10.2023 Ujjawal

¶14

Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL PARJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shashi Kant Rajpoot v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Kant Rajpoot 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himanshu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gyanwati and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Varsha Kumari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Naseem and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Siraj and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Tanu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others