Single judge dwelt on guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal, Neeharika, and a 2021 SLA to decide on quashing of FIR. No case made out for quashing. Petition dismissed.
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:102811-DB
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7283 of 2023
Petitioner :- Abhishek Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadh Narain Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
Heard Sri Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Awadhesh Kumar Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 9.4.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 281 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 304B, 201 IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act, P. S.-Kurawali, District-Mainpuri and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
Learned A. G. A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, 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.
We have gone through the impugned first information report and we are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by the Apex Court in the above noted judgement are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case.
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.
Order Date :- 11.5.2023
HR
Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition for quashing the FIR and directing non-arrest can be allowed under the Bhajan Lal guidelines.
Whether the facts of the FIR disclose a cognizable offence warranting non-interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersExplained¶9
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of MaharashtraExplained¶9
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar PradeshExplained¶9
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh)
Abhishek 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
