Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Akhilesh Yadav v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14078 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15445 (13 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.32

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.14078 of 2007

Akhilesh Yadav v. State of U.P. & others.

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble V.D. Chaturvedi, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the State-respondents and also perused the impugned FIR.

In the instant writ petition the petitioner has come up for quashing of the FIR dated 23.8.2007 in Case Crime No.1409 of 2007, under Sections 419 & 420 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur.

It is vehemently contended that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the impugned FIR. It is also contended that the allegation in the FIR does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence.

We are not impressed with the submission for the reason that from a bare reading of the impugned FIR, commission of cognizable offence is disclosed. It is well settled legal position that the defence version of the accused seeking quashing of the FIR cannot be gone into under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court at this stage.

In the case of M.L. Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita and others, JT 2002 (3) SC 89 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that at the stage of quashing of the FIR the High Court is entitled to only examine the allegations made in the FIR and cannot appreciate by way of sifting the materials collected in course of investigation including the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, in view of the exposition of law there appears to be no reason to quash the impugned FIR or to grant any relief at this stage. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jogendra Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1994 (4) SCC 260, it is provided that the petitioner shall be arrested only when credible evidence is collected against him and if it is found that his arrest is necessary and justified for the purpose of proper investigation.

With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.