Dismissed¶14

Gulfam and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 May 2025CRLP/9272/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused; FIR dated 26.4.2025, Case Crime No. 232 of 2025, Sections 191(2), 190, 333, 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 351(3) B.N.S., PS Chandpur, District Bijnor; counterblast allegation referencing FIR dated 25.4.2025, Case Crime No. 231 of 2025 (Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S.); incident admitted, injuries to informant's brother, wife and son; prima facie cognizable offence; reliance on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2021 SC 1918, Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati v. State of U.P. SLP(C) 3262/2021 (decided 07.10.2021); no arrest protection ordered; CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION 9272 of 2025 dismissed; Allahabad High Court; neutral citation 2025:AHC:74285-DB.

What did the court decide?

None ¶14

Gulfam and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. dated 26.4.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 232 of 2025 (Sections 191(2), 190, 333, 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor) and further praying that the petitioners not be arrested should succeed. +2 more

¶7

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the impugned first information report, it prima facie reveals commission of a cognizable offence; accordingly, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335), M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2021 SC 1918) and Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati v. State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP(C) No. 3262/2021, decided 07.10.2021), no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.

¶13

Key takeaways

The court found on perusal of the first information report that several injuries were suffered by the brother, wife and son of the informant, who were initially referred to a government hospital and thereafter shifted to a private hospital, and that the incident stood admitted; this factual position formed part of the basis for declining interference with the FIR.ratio¶11
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the result that the prayers for quashing of the FIR dated 26.4.2025 (Case Crime No. 232 of 2025) and for non-arrest of the petitioners in that case were not granted.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 43); Coram: Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J. and Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.; CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 9272 of 2025; Gulfam and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others; Order Date 8.5.2025. Petitioners sought quashing of the FIR dated 26.4.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 232 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 190, 333, 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 351(3) of B.N.S., Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor, and further prayed that they not be arrested in that case. Counsel argued false implication and counterblast, pointing to the FIR lodged by the petitioners' side on 25.4.2025 (Case Crime No. 231 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S.) and cross-injuries; however, during argument counsel admitted the incident had taken place with injuries suffered from both sides. The court found on perusal of the FIR that several injuries were suffered by the brother, wife and son of the informant (first referred to a government hospital, then shifted to a private hospital) and that the incident was admitted; the FIR prima facie revealed commission of a cognizable offence. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, and Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati v. State of U.P., SLP(C) No. 3262/2021 (decided 07.10.2021), the court held no case existed for interference with the FIR and dismissed the writ petition.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:74285-DB

¶2

Court No. - 43

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9272 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Gulfam And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Kishor Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Brij Kishor, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Mayuri Mehrotra, learned State Law Officer appearing for the State respondents.

¶7

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 26.4.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 232 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 190, 333, 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 351(3) of B.N.S., Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and the present criminal prosecution has been lodged as a counterblast to the first information report lodged by the petitioners side on 25.4.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 231 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S., Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor. It is next submitted that the petitioners side has also suffered injuries. It is next submitted that the present first information report has been lodged on the next date i.e. 26.4.2025 as a counterblast.

¶9

However, during course of argument learned counsel for the petitioners admitted the fact that the incident had taken place and injuries were also suffered from both the sides.

¶10

Learned State Law Officer opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence.

¶11

On perusal of the first information report we find that several injuries were suffered by the brother, wife and son of the informant and initially they were referred to government hospital and thereafter they were shifted to private hospital and the incident is

¶12

admitted.

¶13

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.

¶14

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Lalit Shukla

¶16

Digitally signed by :- LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gulfam and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulfam and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Gyan Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Husain Uddin Hashim vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Evran Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P, and 2 Others

Smt. Yashoda Devi vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Laxmi Trivedi vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Sachin vs State of U.P. and 2 Others