Dismissed

Satish Chauhan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2023CRLP/2316/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the petitioner sought quashing of an FIR regarding sections 306, 406, and 420 IPC. The court found the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioner to seek bail from the competent court.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed with liberty to apply for anticipatory bail or bail.

Satish Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2316 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Satish Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Sisodia,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anupama Tripathi,Rakesh Kumar Tripathi

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Rajiv Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A-I for the State-respondents.

¶6

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 19.01.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 23 of 2023, under Sections 306, 406, 420 I.P.C., Police Station- Simbhaoli, District- Hapur.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and no offence as alleged has been made out. Certain arguments were raised in defence on factual aspects of the matter regarding investment and taking and giving of some money and therefore, it is a case of malafide prosecution.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant submitted that the petitioner is operating as a gang and in District- Moradabad, Case Crime No. 811 of 2018 dated 08.08.2018 u/s 384, 471, 468, 467, 420, 419 I.P.C. has been lodged wherein the allegations are serious in nature and in the present case also on a bare glance over the first information report would clearly disclose that there was an audio clip with direct allegation which became viral as well. Submission, therefore, is that cognizable offence is made out.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. submits that cognizable offence is made out and there is no specific allegation.

¶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

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 :- 28.3.2023 KS

¶14

Digitally signed by :- KISHAN SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish Chauhan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Chauhan 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

Smt. Laxmi Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Afsar Khan Alias Zeeshan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kamruddin and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Suman Modanwal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others