Satyam Singh vs State Of Up And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 37509 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Satyam Singh vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 14 November, 2024

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178961-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20021 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Satyam Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Kumar Dubey,G.A.,Vinay Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 01.10.2024 as Case Crime No.0410 of 2024 u/s 191(2), 109, 74, 351(3) of B.N.S. 2023 & 3(2)(V) of S.C.S.T. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Jaunpur. (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of F.I.R. dated 01.10.2024 as Case Crime No.0410 of 2024 u/s 191(2), 109, 74, 351(3) of B.N.S. 2023 & 3(2)(V) of S.C.S.T. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Jaunpur."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on false/vexatious/mischievous allegations and no offences are made out against the petitioner.

4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence.

5. The correctness of the allegations would have to be tested on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation and 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 and the latest judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10913 of 2023 (Directorate of Enforcement vs. Niraj Tyagi & ors.), no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.

6. The writ petition is disposed of leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for bail/ anticipatory bail in accordance with law.

7. It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the same are left open for the petitioner to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 14.11.2024

NLY