High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking alteration of prayer from quashing F.I.R. involving sexual offences to obtaining protection under Section 41-A CrPC, noting F.I.R. disclosure of cognizable offences bars quashing.
Prayer to quash F.I.R. is declined; authorities directed to comply with Section 41-A CrPC if applicable.
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:110969-DB
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7251 of 2023
Petitioner :- Toseef And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari,Anoj Kumar Mishra
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 registered as Case Crime No.45 of 2023, under Section 354, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station - Rakabganj, District - Agra, but at the time when the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioners 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 commissioning of 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 dismissed .
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 :- 18.5.2023 Rishabh
[Manish Kumar Nigam, J.] [Siddhartha Varma, J.]
Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report disclosing cognizable offences can be quashed under the Supreme Court law.
Whether the petitioners would get protection under section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Whether the writ petition challenging the F.I.R. can be entertained after the prayer was modified to seek protection under Section 41-A.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah JellaniReferred¶8
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¶8
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Toseef And 3 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Siddhartha Varma
Manish Kumar Nigam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
