Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Mishra v. State Of U.p. And 2 Others

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Mishra v. State Of U.p. And 2 Others

(High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14472 of 2023 | 30-11-2023

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

2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 10.08.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No.0195 of 2023, under Sections-419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station-Kheta Sarai, District-Jaunpur.

3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record, we find that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are his defence, which cannot be looked into while dealing with a writ petition seeking quashing of a first information report.

4. Moreover, the allegations made in the First Information Report clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences and the allegations are serious in nature. Therefore, prayer of the petitioner to quash the First Information Report is completely misconceived and is rejected.

5. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to apply for bail/anticipatory bail.

Advocate List
Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL
Eq Citations
  • 2023/AHC/226651-DB
  • LQ/AllHC/2023/8514
Head Note

**Allahabad High Court** **Gulshan Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another** **[August 17, 2023]** **Bench: Ramesh Sinha, J.** **Headnote:** 1. A writ petition seeking to quash an FIR cannot be used as a forum to present a petitioner's defense. 2. When the allegations in an FIR disclose serious and cognizable offenses, a request for quashing the FIR will be rejected. **Statutes:** - Indian Penal Code, 1860: - Section 419: Cheating by personation. - Section 420: Cheating. - Section 467: Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. - Section 468: Forgery for purpose of cheating. - Section 471: Using forged document or electronic record as genuine. **Case Summary:** - The petitioner sought to quash an FIR alleging offenses under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. - The court noted that the petitioner's submissions amounted to presenting his defense, which was not appropriate in a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR. - Upon examining the FIR, the court found that the allegations disclosed serious and cognizable offenses. - The court held that the petitioner's request to quash the FIR was misconceived and rejected it, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to seek bail or anticipatory bail.