High Court declined prayer to quash F.I.R. as it prima facie disclosed cognizable offence but quashed/imposed obligation upon authorities to comply with Section 41-A of CrPC provisions if attracted to facts.
Prayer to quash F.I.R. declined; direction passed to authorities to ensure compliance of Section 41-A CrPC 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:117247-DB
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8111 of 2023
Petitioner :- Baijnath Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santoosh Kumar Dwivedi 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. 0162 of 2023, under Sections 354, 323, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Nichlaul, 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 41A 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 :- 25.5.2023 Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer to quash F.I.R. can be entertained when F.I.R. prima facie discloses cognizable offence.
Whether the request for protection under Section 41-A of CrPC is maintainable in the given facts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah JellaniReferred¶7
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¶7
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baijnath Yadav And 2 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
