Dismissed

Chandan Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2024CRLP/17654/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous writ petition sought quashing of an FIR for alleged commission of cognizable offences. The High Court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and declined the prayer to quash it, relying on binding Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to quash the FIR is declined. The petitioner is directed to approach the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail.

Chandan Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:164830-DB

¶2

Court No. - 42

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17654 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Chandan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anjeet Singh,Durga Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned AGA for State respondents; Shri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and perused the impugned F.I.R, as well as material brought on record.

¶7

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 4.9.2024 registered as Case Crime No.408 of 2024 under Sections 381, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Phase-1, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against him are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed.

¶9

Learned A.G.A, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, which discloses cognizable offence. He has further submitted that truthfulness of allegations and establishment of guilt take place, when the investigation is done or trial proceeds. Probability, reliability or genuineness cannot be looked under Art.226 of the Constitution. The FIR can only be quashed in a writ jurisdiction, if the FIR does not discloses commission of offence and that too prior to framing of charges. As such it is submitted that no interfere is required in the matter.

¶10

Correctness or otherwise of the F.I.R. allegation need not be examined by us, at this stage, inasmuch as all these issues can be determined at the stage of investigation/trial. Since the First Information Report, prima facie, discloses commissioning of cognizable offence, the prayer made to quash the First Information Report is, therefore, declined in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs.

¶11

Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315, as also in latest judgment in Criminal Appeal No.843 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10913 of 2023 (Directorate of Enforcement vs. Niraj Tyagi and others) connected with Criminal Appeal No.844 of 2024.

¶12

The writ petition is disposed of leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 16.10.2024 SP/

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandan Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaytri Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yogesh Malik and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Parvin Khan vs State of Up and 3 Others

Neha vs State of Up and 3 Others

M/S De Carpet Hotel Raj Complex vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Chandrakant Nirala vs State of Up and 5 Others