Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19185 (ALL)

PRAMOD PRAJAPATI v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

CRLP/3413/2025 · 2025-02-19

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, Vivek Kumar Birla

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24638-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3413 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pramod Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar,Mohd. Ishraque Farooqui Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Heard Shri M.I. Farooqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri V.K. Verma holding brief of Shri R.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A for the State respondents. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 20.01.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 36 of 2025, under Sections 115 (2), 352, 105 B.N.S.S., Police Station Sarai Khawaja, District Jaunpur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in an unfortunate incident grand daughter of the informant aged about five months died, however, the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to village parti-bandi and the allegation as alleged in the impugned FIR is false. Further submission is that the informant side is closely related to local media as such the video has been posted on social media after preparing the forged contents. The grand daughter of the informant died after more than 45 days of the alleged occurrence dated 07.12.2024, therefore, it cannot be said that all such offence as alleged has ever been committed. 4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence. 5. We find that all such arguments that are being raised are nothing but the defence of the petitioner which cannot be considered for quashing of the impugned FIR. 6. 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. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 20.2.2025 Nitendra Digitally signed by :- NITENDRA TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad