Writ petition sought quashing of an FIR under the U.P. Gangster Act and protection from arrest. The court found the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence on its face and declined interference, dismissing the petition while leaving the petitioner free to seek bail from the competent court.
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:174629-DB
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18241 of 2024
Petitioner :- Kallu @ Mohd Safi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Deep Singh,Mahendra Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
Order Date :- 7.11.2024 Bhanu
Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR under the U.P. Gangster Act disclosing a cognizable offence could be quashed in writ jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and othersApplied¶4
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of MaharashtraApplied¶4
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 PradeshRelied on¶4
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kallu @ Mohd Safi
State Of U.P.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Prashant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
