The High Court refused the prayer to quash an FIR due to the disclosure of a cognizable offence. The bench disposed of the writ petition, noting that bail applications will be considered expeditiously in appropriate courts.
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:190485-DB
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22112 of 2024
Petitioner :- Sushama Gond Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Golu Kumar Mishra, Manish Kumar Pathak
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J. Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I, J.
Order Date :- 04.12.2024 Vinod.
Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC disclosing cognizable offence is liable to be quashed.
Whether the prayer for quashing the FIR should be allowed based on the allegations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah JellaniReferred¶9
State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 · Who else cites this
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and OthersReferred¶9
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 · Who else cites this
Directorate Enforcement Vs. Niraj Tyagi and othersReferred¶9
Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024, Directorate Enforcement Vs. Niraj Tyagi and others.
Sushama Gond
State Of Up
Rajiv Gupta
Surendra Singh-I
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
