This High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR involving sexual offences and IT Act violations. The court held that a cognizable offence was made out and refused quashing, leaving bail applications to competent courts.
Petition dismissed; no relief granted against the FIR; petitioner left to approach competent court for bail.
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. - 5948 of 2023
Petitioner :- Chandan Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mustaqeem Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Mustaqeem Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the informant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A for the State respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 05.03.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 0013 of 2023, under Section 376 IPC, Section 5/6 POCSO Act and Section 66E and 67 of I.T. Act, 2008, Police Station Rampur Manjha, District Ghazipur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case; the informant was a consenting party and in fact during the period when the offence is stated to be committed the petitioner was on duty.
Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR and submits that photographs of the victim has been made viral on social media and all the arguments that have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are only the defence of the petitioner which cannot be considered for purpose of quashing of the first information report and therefore, a cognizable offence has been made out.
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.
Order Date :- 1.5.2023 Nitendra
Digitally signed by :- NITENDRA TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR should be quashed given the petitioner's claim of being falsely implicated and the victim's consent.
Whether the viral nature of photographs permits refusal to quash the FIR at the initial stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersFollowed¶10
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 MaharashtraFollowed¶10
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 PradeshRelied on¶10
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh)
Chandan Yadav
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Birla
Surendra Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
