Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 55546 (ALL)

POOJA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

CRLP/9346/2025 · 2025-05-08

Vivek Kumar Birla, Yogesh Dubey Joint Registrar Judicial

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75556-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9346 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pooja Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Pati Tiwari,Deepak Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J. 1. Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.P. Dwivedi, learned AGA-I for the State. 2. Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned FIR dated 25.4.2025 lodged as Case Crime No. 372 of 2025, under sections 308(2), 127(2), 115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS, P.S. Kotwali Shahar, District Bulandshahr. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. No such incident has taken place. There was some money dispute because of which present criminal prosecution has been lodged. In fact petitioner had given certain amount to the hospital of Dr. Mohit and as such no offence is made out. 4. Per contra, learned AGA pointed out that in paragraph no. 25 of the petition, three cases out of which two cases under section 302 IPC and one case under the provisions of the Gangster Act, are admittedly pending against the petitioner. Further submission is that apart from the present criminal case, one more case is pending against the petitioner which has not been disclosed in the criminal history. 5. We have perused the first information report carefully. We find that the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is nothing but defense of the petitioner and cannot be considered for the purpose of quashing of the first information report. 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. The instant petition stands dismissed. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 SY Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad