Dismissed¶11

Suraj Kumar @ Majnu and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2025CRLP/1911/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused; writ petition dismissed; U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Section 3(1); Case Crime No.0001 of 2025; cognizable offence disclosed; Bhajan Lal parameters; Neeharika Infrastructure principle; anticipatory bail/bail left open to petitioners; P.S. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar; Allahabad High Court, decision dated 19.02.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:24324-DB.

What did the court decide?

Perusal of the impugned FIR prima facie reveals commission of a cognizable offence; therefore, in view of the law laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra and SLP(Crl.) No.3262/2021, no case is made out for interference with the impugned FIR. ¶10

Suraj Kumar @ Majnu and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24324-DB

¶2

Court No. - 42

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1911 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Suraj Kumar @ Majnu And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

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

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A for the State respondents.

¶7

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 01.01.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0001 of 2025, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. - Swaroop Nagar, Central (commissionerate Kanpur Nagar), District- Kanpur Nagar. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on false/vexatious/mischievous allegations and no offences are made out against the petitioners.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence.

¶10

Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.

¶11

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.

¶12

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Sachin

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj Kumar @ Majnu and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Kumar @ Majnu and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aftab Shah vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anuj Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramesh Ram vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Virendra Singh Pahalwan @ Virendra Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashik Ali vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Kajal Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others