Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Mohd. Asad v. State Of U P And 2 Others

Mohd. Asad v. State Of U P And 2 Others

(High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18181 of 2022 | 02-02-2023

1. Heard Mrs Swati Agrawal Srivastava for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State respondents.

2. The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 31.08.2022, giving rise to Case crime No. 274 of 2022 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 and 386 IPC., Police Station Kareli, District Prayagraj.

3. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the incident allegedly took place on 14.08.2022, but the first information report in its regard was lodged on 31.08.2022 with considerable delay. It has been lodged as there was a falling out between the petitioner and the first informant who were business partners earlier and on account of such enmity. Counsel for the petitioner has emphasised upon the averments made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. The first informant is a close friend of one Zeeshan who had earlier filed an FIR against the petitioner on 31.07.2022 regarding an alleged incident of 26.07.2022. After a gap of a month, the instant first information report has been filed only on account of enmity. It has also been submitted that from the allegations in the first information report, no case for extortion is made out as no money is alleged to have changed hands on the alleged threat held out by the petitioner. In any view of the matter it is a no injury case and therefore the petition is liable to be entertained and the arrest of the petitioner is liable to be stayed.

4. Ld. AGA has refuted the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the allegations in the first information report clearly disclose a cognizable offence. The first information report, therefore, cannot be quashed and for the same reason no interim order is liable to be granted in favour of the petitioner.

5. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record. We have no hesitation in holding that the impugned first information report does not allege that any property or money changed hands on the basis of the threats that were held out by the petitioner. Therefore, no offence under section 386 IPC is made out from the allegations in the first information report. However, the other allegations therein cannot be said to be such which do not disclose any cognizable offence. Besides, it is also settled law that a first information report cannot be quashed in part.

6. In view of what has been stated above and since the allegations in the first information report do disclose cognizable offences, even though the offence under section 386 IPC is clearly not made out, the first information report cannot be quashed. Moreover, the submissions that have been made by counsel for the petitioner are his defence, which is not liable to be considered while dealing with a writ petition seeking quashing of the first information report.

7. In view of what has been stated above and since the contents of the impugned first information report clearly contain ingredients of cognizable offence(s), this writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Advocate List

  • Swati Agrawal Srivastava

  • G.A.,Chandra Kant Bharadwaj

Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE GAJENDRA KUMAR
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/AllHC/2023/610
Head Note

IPC, 1860 — Ss. 386, 307, 323, 147, 148 and 149 — Petitioner-accused seeking quashing of FIR — Held, FIR does not allege that any property or money changed hands on basis of threats that were held out by petitioner — Therefore, no offence under S. 386 made out from allegations in FIR — However, other allegations therein cannot be said to be such which do not disclose any cognizable offence — Besides, it is also settled law that FIR cannot be quashed in part — In view of what has been stated above and since allegations in FIR do disclose cognizable offences, even though offence under S. 386 is clearly not made out, FIR cannot be quashed — Besides, submissions that have been made by counsel for petitioner are his defence, which is not liable to be considered while dealing with a writ petition seeking quashing of FIR — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 482 and 154 — Quashing of FIR