In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR under various IPC and S.C. & S.T. Act sections, the Allahabad High Court held that the FIR prima facie reveals commission of a cognizable offence and no case for quashing was made out.
No interference with the impugned First Information Report; writ 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:118540-DB
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8156 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rajnish Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kaushal Kishore Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned First Information Report registered as Case Crime No. 105 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 353, 354, 307 IPC & 3(2) (Va) S.C. & S.T. Act, Police Station Basi, District - Siddharth Nagar, and a direction to the respondent authorities not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned first information report.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated.
Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. submit that a cognizable offence has been made out and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned first information report.
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.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.5.2023 PK
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the intrusion of the High Court into the jurisdiction of a Police is warranted given the prima facie commission of cognizable offences in the FIR.
Whether the grounds for quashing the FIR under the Bhajan Lal principles are satisfied in this case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersReferred¶10
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 MaharashtraReferred¶10
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 PradeshReferred¶10
Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajnish Mishra
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
