Criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of FIR and stay of arrest dismissed. The High Court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and cited Supreme Court precedents to deny interference.
Prayer for quashing of FIR dismissed; petitioners directed to approach competent court for bail/anticipatory 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. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 637 of 2023
Petitioner :- Shama @ Kajal And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jayant Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Jayant Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A for the State respondents.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 24.11.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 0528 of 2022 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 332, 353 of I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Nakhasa, District Sambhal. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R., which discloses cognizable offence.
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 petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 1.2.2023 SY
Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the facts disclosed in the FIR under Sections 147, 148, 307, 332, 355 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act make out a case for quashing of FIR under Article 226
Whether the petitioners are entitled to interim stay of arrest in the pending criminal proceedings
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶9
Shama @ Kajal And 5 Others
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Vivek Kumar Birla
Saurabh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
