Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order taking cognizance in a complaint case under Section 363 IPC. The Court declined to interfere, holding that no prima facie case for quashing was made out and the matter required trial.
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. - 2025:AHC:72943
Court No. - 87
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31149 of 2024
Applicant :- Maharaj Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar 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."
Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Kumar Manish
Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a prima facie case of kidnapping under Section 363 IPC?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalRelied on¶10
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶19
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabRelied on¶19
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar v. P.P. SharmaRelied on¶19
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful HaqRelied on¶19
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
Maharaj Singh And 3 Others
Prashant Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
