Dismissed

Ramakant Chauhan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 May 2023CRLP/6782/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 304 IPC. The court held that an FIR cannot be quashed merely on the ground of alleged concoction or lack of evidence, noting the matter requires serious investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of FIR dismissed without prejudice to the right to apply for bail or anticipatory bail.

Ramakant Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6782 of 2023 Petitioner :- Ramakant Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan,Tanveer Zafar Khan

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the impugned F.I.R. dated 23.03.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No.123 of 2023, under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Khadda, District Kushinagar.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first information report is concocted and has been registered on account of enmity with connivance of the police personnel with whom, petitioner have enmity since 2017. There is no evidence to connect the petitioner to the alleged crime.

¶8

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the first information report, we find that the submissions that are being made either or with regard to the evidence that may or may not be connect during investigation.

¶9

Besides, the submissions are to the defense of the petitioner, which is also not liable to be considered while dealing with a writ petition seeking quashing of a first information report.

¶10

In any case, the matter does require a serious investigation, the writ court is also not require to examine as to whether the allegations in the first information report etc. will result in conviction or otherwise, the only requirement is a consideration. The allegations constitute a cognizable offence, we are constrained to hold that such is the case in the matter at hand.

¶11

Under the circumstances, the first information report cannot be quashed.

¶12

The writ petition is therefore dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to apply for bail/ anticipatory bail.

¶13

Order Date :- 2.5.2023 RKM

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramakant Chauhan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant Chauhan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveen Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishal Joshi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neeraj Agarwal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajit Issac Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajit Issac Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhanraj Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others