Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21244 (ALL)

ANIL YADAV AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

CRLP/3464/2025 · 2025-03-04

Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi, Vivek Kumar Birla

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31152-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3464 of 2025 Petitioner :- Anil Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Yadav,Mahesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ratnesh Pratap Singh Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J. 1. Heard Sri N.K. Singh, holding brief of Sri Dinesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jai Narayan, learned A.G.A for the State respondents and Sri Ratnesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 24.1.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 0027 of 2025, under Sections 352, 109 of BNS read with Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and no such offence is made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that injuries suffered are simple in nature and no offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out. It is next submitted that respondent no. 4 is a habitual criminal and there is no independent witnesses of the incident. 4. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence. They further submit that there are as many as nine injuries on vital part and in any case a cognizable offence is made out. 5. Perusal of the impugned first information report 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 :- 5.3.2025 Abhishek Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad