Chandrakesh Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Chandrakesh Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition finally disposed of: quashing of the FIR refused; petitioners directed to appear before the court below within 60 days and apply for bail/anticipatory bail, to be considered per Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); no coercive action for 60 days, coercive action thereafter in default, and no further time for surrender.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 19.03.2025 in Case Crime No. 90/2025 under Sections- 366 IPC (P.S. Devgaon, District Azamgarh) should be quashed — i.e., whether it fails to disclose any offence against the petitioners or was instituted mala fide to cause harassment. +1 more

Court's answer

On the material on record and the facts of the case, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out against the petitioners.

Ratio / Principle

The submissions advanced at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution; only a prima facie case is to be seen at this stage, in the light of the law laid down in R.P. Kapur, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.

Key takeaways

The prayer for quashing the FIR in Case Crime No. 90/2025 is refused.ratio¶¶11
Direction: if the petitioners appear before the court below within 60 days and apply for bail/anticipatory bail, their prayer shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law in Amrawati v. State of U.P. (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)).ratio¶¶11
For a period of 60 days no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner(s).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Siddharth and Avnish Saxena, JJ.), disposing of a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of FIR dated 19.03.2025 in Case Crime No. 90/2025 under Sections- 366 IPC (P.S. Devgaon, District Azamgarh): held that the petitioners' submissions involved disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under Article 226, and that on the material on record it could not be said that no offence was made out at that stage, the prima facie position being assessed in the light of R.P. Kapur, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.; accordingly the prayer for quashing was refused. The Court directed that if the petitioners appeared before the court below within 60 days and applied for bail/anticipatory bail, the prayer would be considered per Amrawati v. State of U.P. and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.; no coercive action was to be taken for 60 days, coercive action would follow in default, and no further time for surrender would be granted.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132264-DB

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11528 of 2025

Petitioner :- Chandrakesh Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 19.03.2025 lodged in Case Crime No. 90/2025 under Sections- 366 of IPC, Police Station- Devgaon, District- Azamgarh.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence against the petitioners are disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners involve factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under article 226 of Constitution of India. At this stage only prima facie case is to be

seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

The prayer for quashing the FIR of the aforesaid case is refused. 6. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the petitioners appears before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail/anticipatory bail, their prayer for bail/anticipatory bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of. 8. For the period of 60 days no coercive actions shall be taken against petitioner.

However, in case, the petitioners do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

It is made clear that the petitioner will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.

Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Abhishek

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad