Surendra Kumar Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Surendra Kumar Pandey and Others Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether F.I.R. No.0134 of 2025 discloses commission of any cognizable offence so as to warrant its quashing under Article 226 jurisdiction. +1 more

Court's answer

While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in dealing with a prayer for quashing of an F.I.R., this Court can merely ascertain whether commission of any cognizable offence is made out from a bare perusal of the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. or not.

Ratio / Principle

The F.I.R. in the present case clearly discloses commission of cognizable offence by the accused persons.

Key takeaways

Facts allegedly concealed in an F.I.R. cannot be examined by this Court while examining the validity of the F.I.R.; such examination falls to the Investigating Officer during investigation or to the trial court during inquiry.ratio¶7
Since the perusal of the F.I.R. clearly discloses commission of cognizable offence by the petitioners, no ground is made out for quashing of the F.I.R.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 5305 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; decided 18.06.2025; coram: Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. and Subhash Vidyarthi, J.). Petitioners (Surendra Kumar Pandey and others) sought quashing of F.I.R. No.0134 of 2025 dated 01.06.2025, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Pratapgarh, lodged under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 109(1) B.N.S., alleging assault on the informant, his father and uncle at about 07:30 PM on 01.06.2025 with sticks and iron rods causing serious injuries. Counsel argued the F.I.R. concealed that persons from both sides received injuries and that it was a counterblast, the petitioners'-side F.I.R. not having been registered. Court held: under Article 226 jurisdiction it can only ascertain from a bare perusal of the F.I.R. allegations whether a cognizable offence is made out; the F.I.R. clearly disclosed cognizable offences; concealed facts are matters for the Investigating Officer or the trial court, not for quashing-stage scrutiny; hence no ground existed for quashing and the writ petition was dismissed.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35756-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5305 of 2025

Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Pandey And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mini. Of Home Lko And Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anita Tiwari,Ishika Srivastava,Satish Kumar Srivastava,Simi Jha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the petitioners is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Satish Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Abhay Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Puttu Lal Misra, Advocate, who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.4/ informant in Court today, which is taken on record.

3. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of F.I.R. No.0134 of 2025 dated 01.06.2025, under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 109(1) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Pratapgarh.

4. A perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that the complainant has alleged that the accused persons had assaulted the informant, his father and uncle

at about 07:30 PM on 01.06.2025 with sticks and iron rods causing serious injuries to them. The informant's father vomited blood and fell unconscious due to serious injuries suffered by him.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the F.I.R. does not disclose complete facts and the informant has concealed that persons from both the sides have received injuries in the incident.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also filed a supplementary affidavit contending that the F.I.R. has been lodged as a counterblast action and the F.I.R. from the petitioners' side has not been registered.

7. While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while dealing with the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R., this Court can merely ascertain whether commission of any cognizable offence is made out from a bare perusal of the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. or not. The F.I.R. in the present case clearly discloses commission of cognizable offence by the accused persons. The facts, which have allegedly been concealed in the F.I.R., cannot be examined by this Court while examining the validity of the F.I.R., and that would be done by the Investigating Officer during investigation or by the trial court during inquiry.

8. Since the perusal of the F.I.R. clearly discloses commission of cognizable offence by the petitioners, no ground is made out for quashing of the F.I.R.

9. The writ petition lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed .

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.]

Order Date :- 18.6.2025 cks/-

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench