Allahabad High Court
TEJPAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR discloses a cognizable offence and a prima facie case, so the petition to quash it must be dismissed.
Summary
Petitioners Tejpal and another filed a writ petition challenging an FIR dated 03.09.2026 that alleged offences under Sections 123, 308(5), 61(2), 352 and 351(3) of the Indian Penal Code. They claimed the FIR was malicious, filed to evade rent liability, and asserted their innocence. The State and the first informant contended that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and that a prima facie case existed, alleging organized crime and blackmail. The Court examined the FIR and held that it clearly disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, establishing a prima facie case. Consequently, the Court found no ground to entertain the petition for quashing the FIR. The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 03.09.2026 can be quashed on the ground of being malicious and lacking a prima facie case
- Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence sufficient to deny relief
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 123, 308(5), 351(3), 352, 61(2)
Subjects
- FIR quash
- prima facie case
- cognizable offence
- organized crime
- rent liability
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22545 of 2026
Tejpal And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : A.Z. Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Kumar Shukla, G.A., Saroj Shukla
Court No. - 46
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.Z. Khan, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned
A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Anil Kumar Shukla, the
learned counsel for first informant/ respondent -4.
2. Perused the record.
3. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the FIR dated 03.09.2026
lodged by first informant-respondent-4 and registered as Case Crime No.
439 of 2026, under Sections 123, 308(5), 61(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police
Station- Sadar Bazar, District-Saharanpur.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners in challenge to the impugned FIR submits
that petitioners are innocent. They have not committed crime in question.
The impugned FIR has been engineered only to overcome rent liability of
petitioner-1 Tejpal towards first informant/respondent-4. He therefore
submits that the impugned FIR is malicious and therefore liable to be
quashed by this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned AGA for State- respondents 1 to 3 and the learned
counsel for first informant/ respondent-4 submit that petitioner -2 Smt. Payal
is a married lady but she is in consensual relationship with petitioner-2.
Petitioners have formed organized group to commit organized crime by
blackmailing peaceful citizen.
6. Elaborating his submission, learned AGA for State- respondents 1 to 3
CRLP No. 22545 of 2026
2
submits that upon perusal of the impugned FIR it is apparent that
commission of a cognizable offence is clearly disclosed. Since from the
allegation made in the FIR, prima facie case is made out and at this stage
only prima facie case is to be seen, therefore, no indulgence be granted by
this Court in present writ petition.
7. We have considered the rival submissions.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned AGA for
State-respondents 1, 2 and 3, the learned counsel for first informant-
respondent-4 and upon perusal of record, we find that the impugned FIR
clearly discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Considering the
allegations made in the FIR we are not inclined to entertain the present writ
petition.
9. As a result, writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
10. It is accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
September 18, 2026
Dhirendra/
Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…