Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR via writ petition. The High Court declined to quash as the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence. Relief was shifted to protection under Section 41-A CrPC, which authorities are directed to ensure compliance with.
Petition disposed; authorities directed to ensure compliance with Section 41-A CrPC if attracted.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:99964-DB
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6653 of 2023
Petitioner :- Arvind Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Janardan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
Although prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report dated 7.4.2023 registered as Case Crime No.85 of 2023, under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(Va) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Kaptanganj, District - Azamgarh but at the time when the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioner confines his relief to grant of protection under section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure.
We have perused the the First Information Report which prima facie discloses cognizable offence and, therefore, the prayer made to quash F.I.R. otherwise cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315 . Prayer made in that regard is, therefore, declined.
Writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of.
It is, however, provided that in the event provisions of Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure are attracted in the facts of the case, the authorities shall ensure its compliance.
Order Date :- 9.5.2023 PK
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the prayer to quash the First Information Report is maintainable when the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah JellaniReferred¶7
State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 · Who else cites this
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and OthersReferred¶7
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Arvind Yadav
State Of U.P.
Siddhartha Varma
Manish Kumar Nigam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
