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.

Smt. Rajbala And Another v. State Of U.p. And 3 Others

Smt. Rajbala And Another v. State Of U.p. And 3 Others

(High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8147 of 2022 | 28-06-2022

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant petition seeks quashing of the impugned F.I.R. dated 28.05.2022 giving rise to Case Crime No. 381 of 2022, under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar.

3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that submissions made on behalf of the petitioners 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 right of the petitioner to apply for bail/ anticipatory bail.

Advocate List

  • Ajay Kumar

  • G.A.

Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE SYED WAIZ MIAN
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/AllHC/2022/9699
Head Note

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — Ss. 3/7 — Petitioner sought quashing of FIR under the said provisions — Held, submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are his defence, which cannot be looked into while dealing with a writ petition seeking quashing of a first information report — Moreover, allegations made in the First Information Report clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences and are serious in nature — Prayer of petitioner to quash First Information Report is completely misconceived and is rejected, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to apply for bail/ anticipatory bail