The High Court refused to quash the FIR given prima facie disclosure of a cognizable offence, citing Supreme Court precedents. The petition was disposed of but the court directed authorities to ensure compliance with Section 41-A of CrPC if applicable.
Prayer to quash FIR dismissed; compliance with Section 41-A CrPC directed 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:113809-DB
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7882 of 2023
Petitioner :- Bantu And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
Heard Sri Lalit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.N. Mishra, learned AGA for the State.
Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report dated 8.5.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No.368 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 323, 324, 325, 308 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station-Talganj, DistrictAgra, 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 .
We are of the view that no interference is warranted. 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.
The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.5.2023 GS
(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) (Siddhartha Varma, J.)
Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM SONI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to quash the First Information Report or grant protection under Section 41-A of CrPC.
Whether the prima facie disclosure of cognizable offence bars the quashing of the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah JellaniExplained¶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 OthersExplained¶8
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bantu And 5 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Siddhartha Varma
Manish Kumar Nigam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
