Dismissed

Tej Bahadur Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2023CRLP/17364/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, JJ. dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR relevant to IPC sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, and 506, holding that a cognizable offence is made out and an FIR may not be quashed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of the First Information Report is declined and refused.

Tej Bahadur Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:214336-DB

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17364 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Tej Bahadur Yadav And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Virendra Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajeev Kumar Saxena, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 3 and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶7

The petitioners, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 31.5.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 261 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Varanasi.

¶8

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 petitioners and there is no occasion or reason to quash the FIR in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶9

Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the FIR is declined and refused.

¶10

However, it is open for the petitioners, if so advised, they shall move proper anticipatory bail application before the appropriate forum, within fifteen days from today.

¶11

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.

¶12

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 7.11.2023 M. Tarik

¶14

Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tej Bahadur Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Bahadur Yadav and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rama Shankar Tiwari and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lal Bahadur Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mr Deepak Miglani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manish Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arif and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashish Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others