Allahabad High Court
CRLP/10923/2025 of SATIRAM YADAV Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 27 May 2025
No. - 2025:AHC:91074-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10923 of 2025 Petitioner :- Satiram Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ambresh Kumar,Virendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10923 of 2025
Petitioner :- Satiram Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ambresh Kumar,Virendra KumarCounsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.'Honble Anil Kumar-X,J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the 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 impugnedFirst Information Report dated 24.01.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 30 of 2025,under Section 316(5) B.N.S., Police Station- Shahganj, District- Jaunpur (AnnexureNo. 1 to this writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding therespondents not to arrest or harass the petitioner in pursuance of impugned FirstInformation Report."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has beenlodged on false/vexatious/mischievous allegations and no offence is made outagainst the petitioner.
4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which disclosescognizable offence.
5. The correctness of the allegations would have to be tested on the basis of thematerials collected during the course of investigation as by insertion of notificationNo.1058/79-V-1-19-1 (Ka)-20-2018 dated 6th June 2019 and therefore, in view ofthe law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana andothers vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s NeeharikaInfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and inSpecial Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati &another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021 and the latestjudgment 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.), nocase has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
6. The writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and inaccordance with law.
7. It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised by learnedcounsel for the petitioner and the same are left open for the petitioner to raise at anappropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
Order Date :- 28.5.2025A.K.Srivastava