Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR under Sections 452, 354, 504 and 506 IPC but confined relief to Section 41-A protection. The court found the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, declined interference, and directed compliance with Arnesh Kumar arrest guidelines.
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:114929-DB
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11667 of 2024
Petitioner :- Chhamman Khan And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shahnawaz Akhtar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
the guidelines of Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 .
Order Date :- 19.7.2024 M.S. Ansari
(Vikas Budhwar,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :- MOHD SAQIB ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR dated 20.06.2024 (Case Crime No. 0211 of 2024) under Sections 452, 354, 504 and 506 IPC should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah JellaniRelied on
(2017) 2 SCC 779 · Who else cites this
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and OthersRelied on
(2021) SCC Online SC 315 · Who else cites this
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of BiharRelied on
(2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chhamman Khan And 3 Others
State Of Up And 3 Others
Siddhartha Varma
Vikas Budhwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
