MONU GUPTA AND 6 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
CRLP/3198/2025 · 2025-03-05
Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi, Vivek Kumar Birla
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18786 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18786 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32206-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3198 of 2025 Petitioner :- Monu Gupta And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
1. Heard Sri Saurabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Jai Narain, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 01.2.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 36 of 2025, under Sections 191 (3), 190, 115 (2), 333, 352, 109 BNS, P.S. Kalan, District Shahjahanpur, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and they have not committed any offence. The FIR was lodged after a delay of one day and on the date of the incident petitioner no.1 Monu Gupta had some scuffle with Om Prakash Gupta (father of the informant) in which, both of them received injuries, thereafter, the other family members have been implicated falsely in the present case.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that grievous injury on head was received by the injured, therefore, cognizable offence is made out.
5. We have gone through the impugned FIR. We find that the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is nothing but defence which cannot be considered for the purpose of quashing of the impugned FIR. Perusal of the same prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence.
6. 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.
7. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Madhurima Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad