This bench quashed the prayer to quash the FIR given prima facie disclosures of a cognizable offence. The petitioners were granted compliance with Section 41-A of CrPC safeguards instead.
Writ petition disposed with a direction for compliance of Section 41-A of CrPC.
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:113793-DB
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7911 of 2023
Petitioner :- Afjal Ansari And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar,Piyush Patel Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajeet Singh
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
Sri Ajit Kumar, Advocate stated that he has filed vakalatnama on 22.05.2023 on behalf of respondent no. 3. Office to trace out the same and place on record.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ajit Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Although prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report registered as Case Crime No. 60 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Thuthibari, District Maharajganj, 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.
However, it is 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.
With the above directions, writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.5.2023 Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report disclosing a cognizable offence can be quashed.
Whether protection under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah JellaniDistinguished¶9
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¶9
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Afjal Ansari And 4 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
