Dismissed

Shahnawaz @ Shahnawaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 May 2023CRLP/6333/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed for quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC and SC/ST Act. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that offences are made out under Bhajan Lal principles, and left the petitioner to approach competent court for bail.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no case made out for interference with FIR; petitioner directed to seek anticipatory bail separately.

Shahnawaz @ Shahnawaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6333 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Shahnawaz @ Shahnawaz Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar,Abhishek Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.P.Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

¶6

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 31.03.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 0087 of 2023, under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (2) (va) and 3 (1) (Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Pipri, District Kaushambi. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and no offence is made out against the petitioner.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA submits that the petitioner has criminal history of four cases and the allegations made in the first information report clearly reflect that a cognizable offence has been made out.

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Order Date :- 2.5.2023

¶13

Pratima

¶14

Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shahnawaz @ Shahnawaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahnawaz @ Shahnawaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Narayan Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pankaj Chaubey and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Kasturi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Kant Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Jyoti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others