This criminal miscellaneous writ petition sought quashing of an FIR lodged by a father against his sons. The court held that a prima facie case was made out, dismissing the petition and advising the petitioner to seek bail separately.
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.
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5601 of 2023
Petitioner :- Krishna And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sonu Malik Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
Heard Ms. Sonu Malik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajesh Kumar Sachan, learned State Law Officer appearing on behalf of the State.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 05.03.2021 in Case Crime No. 115 of 2021, under Sections 392, 327, 385, 386, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Sikandra, District Agra and a direction to the respondent authorities not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned first information report.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a false FIR has been lodged by the father against his son and family on false grounds and the petitioners have been turned out by their father and they are living separately.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that record clearly reveals that a cognizable offence has been made out and ingredients of all the offences as alleged are reflected from the perusal of the first information report.
Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. 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.
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.
We find that in the list of fresh cases, the district is being reflected as 'district Allahabad' in place of 'district Agra'. Office is directed to verify the same and if needed necessary correction be made in the records.
Order Date :- 3.5.2023 Brijesh Maurya
Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report ought to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether a prima facie case exists for the alleged offences under the IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersReferred¶9
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶9
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶9
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Krishna And 5 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Vivek Kumar Birla
Surendra Singh I
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
