This Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a charge sheet. The Court held that prima facie offences were made out against the applicants and disputed factual issues require trial adjudication.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR 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. - 2024:AHC:196081
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42995 of 2024
Applicant :- Abu Salim And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Pratibha Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
"(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 13.12.2024 S.P.
Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the instant application for quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. falls under the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal.
Whether prima facie no case is made out against the applicants based on the allegations in the FIR.
Whether the disputed questions of fact pending trial can be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalExplained¶12
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶20
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶20
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.SharmaRelied on¶20
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherRelied on¶20
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Abu Salim
State of U.P.
Prashant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
