HEMA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
January 16,2014
Hema Mishra
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF ORISSA VS. MADAN GOPAL RUNGLA [REFERRED TO]BALCHAND JAIN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KARTAR SINGH KRIPA SHANKAR RAI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SOM MITTAL VS. GOVT OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
LAL KAMLENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
NATHO MAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
LALJI YADAV VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
AMARAWATI VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
AJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GURBACHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SUMIT KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-12-9] [REFERRED TO]MOIRANGTHEM MEGHA VS. THE STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2015-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISHPRASAD M. JOSHI VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-193] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-324] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN SRIKANTH VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2014-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
DHARUBHAI VASANBHAI BARIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-83] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH SHAH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
ATENDRA SINGH RAWAT VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-53] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH CHANDRA SAHU VS. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE [LAWS(ORI)-2024-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KRISHNA ARODE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-279] [REFERRED TO]
ANOOP VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2017-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD GURJAR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-3-187] [REFERRED TO]
ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJESH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-6-40] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA MOHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-372] [REFERRED TO]
ANKUR MISHRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-260] [REFERRED TO]
JACOB RAI (KHALING) VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2016-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
RAHNA JALAL VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2020-12-59] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLAWATI FILLING ZONE AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-479] [REFERRED TO]
ANJALI SIROHI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-406] [REFERRED TO]
YARAJARLA VENKATA SIVA BABU VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2023-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD AND ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA JAIN VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2021-11-103] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIMA SAVIN BANSAL VS. SAVIN BANSAL AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-3-179] [REFERRED TO]
DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2018-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
VIMAL YASHWANTGIRI GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-10-1077] [REFERRED TO]
VAKAMULLA CHANDRASHEKHAR VS. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-278] [REFERRED TO]
HARDIKBHAI MUKESHBHAI CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-297] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR VIHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-310] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA MOHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-1-112] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD HANEEF @ MOHD HASEEN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-10-79] [REFERRED TO]
BILAL ISMAILBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-124] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV SAWHNEY VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CYBER CRIME WING [LAWS(MAD)-2014-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
FAROOQ AHMAD GILLANI VS. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-10-60] [REFERRED TO]
XXXXXXXX VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2023-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
SOUDAMINI SIVADAS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-10-308] [REFERRED TO]
M. SIVASANKAR VS. STATE [LAWS(KER)-2020-10-29] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL JAIN VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2019-3-158] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH MANEKCHAND KOTHARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
KAMMASANDRA MILK PRODUCERS VS. K SHIVANNA; ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES; KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE [LAWS(KAR)-2016-1-341] [REFERRED]
A.C. JAYARAM VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH M.S. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-12-90] [REFERRED TO]
K. SRINIVASA @ SIVASWAMY VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2018-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
SURJITSINGH BHAGATSINGH GAMBHIR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-9-45] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH TYAGI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-223] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA MANI PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-181] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-259] [REFERRED TO]
MANJU MISRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-142] [REFERRED TO]
SHILP SUNILBHAI PIYUSHBHAI BHATT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
DURSINGBHAI LAKADIYABHAI RATHWA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-110] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI MAKWANA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-210] [REFERRED TO]
P V RAMANA REDDY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2020-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
AMI CHAND VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2020-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
RITESH INANI S/O RAJENDRA INANI VS. STATE OF MP & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-4-96] [REFERRED TO]
K.S.K MAHANADI POWER COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-1-54] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF A.P VS. BRANCH MANAGER [LAWS(APH)-2023-10-55] [REFERRED TO]
VINAY PATHAK VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-11-92] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ AUTOMOBILES VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-438] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SHARMA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-303] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL VIJAY KAUSHIK VS. ANIL VIJAY KAUSHIK [LAWS(GJH)-2023-9-92] [REFERRED TO]
M/S NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2021-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TELANGANA VS. HABIB ABDULLAH JEELANI & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-1-147] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN FAUJI VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-3-59] [REFERRED TO]
DABHI DIGVIJAYSINH MAHIPATSINH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-207] [REFERRED TO]
SIPAI MAHMAD ARIF SORAMKHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-248] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KUMAR KARTROLIYA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
BALVIR SINGH TOMAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-7-58] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVINBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-89] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH SINGH BHADORIA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-318] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-57] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-65] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH PANKAJ VS. STATE OF U P AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-299] [REFERRED TO]
R T RAM CHANDRAN, S/O LATE R G THAGRAJAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
S. ARIHARAN VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-823] [REFERRED TO]
GURJINDER PAL SINGH (PRESENTLY UNDER SUSPENSION) VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
BAROT CHENJIBHAI KARSHANBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-87] [REFERRED TO]
JAVED ANAND VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
ANILKUMAR RAMLAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-132] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK RAJ VS. PRINCIPAL APEEJAY SCHOOL [LAWS(DLH)-2024-5-186] [REFERRED TO]
A. B. VENKATESWARA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-9-66] [REFERRED TO]
JAIVEER SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-6-28] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNI DEVI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-419] [REFERRED TO]
ANKUR MAURYA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-8-52] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-9-61] [REFERRED TO]
SATVINDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2022-7-113] [REFERRED TO]
JAYRAJSINGH DEVENDRASINGH RATHOD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-213] [REFERRED TO]
SUNRICH LOGISTICS PVT LTD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-241] [REFERRED TO]
SURESHBHAI MASABHAI KOTAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-172] [REFERRED TO]
NITESH WADHWANI VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-8-145] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR SETHI, S/O LATE MOTILAL SETHI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2017-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
DORAND AND ORS. VS. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NAGERCOIL AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-2-154] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Appellant herein had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned FIR dated 21.12.2011, contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition, lodged at crime No. 797/11 under Sections 419/420 IPC, at Police Station Zaidpur, District Barabanki;
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Superintendant of Police, Barabanki, the opposite Party No. 2, and the Investigating Officer, Case Crime No. 797/11, under Sections 419/420 IPC, Police Station, Zaidpur, District Barabanki, the opposite party No. 3, to defer the arrest of the petitioner until collection of the credible evidence sufficient for filing the charge-sheet by following the amended proviso to Sections 41(1)(b) read with Section 41A CrPC;
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki, the opposite party No. 2, for compliance of the provision of Sections 41(1)(b) and 41A CrPC in the investigation of the impugned FIR dated 21.12.2011 contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition, lodged in crime No. 797/11, under Sections 419/420 IPC, Zaidpur, District Barabanki; and
iv) Allow this writ petition with costs.
(3.)The High Court, after hearing the parties as well as the State, dismissed the writ petition on 9.1.2012 and passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate. Under challenge in the instant writ petition is FIR relating to Case Crime No. 797 of 2011, under Sections 419 & 420 IPC, police station Zaidpur, district Barabanki. We have gone through the FIR, which discloses commission of cognizable offence, as such, the same cannot be quashed. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
However, the petitioner being lady, it is provided that if she surrenders and moves application for bail the same shall be considered and decided by the courts below expeditiously."
(2.)Appellant herein had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned FIR dated 21.12.2011, contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition, lodged at crime No. 797/11 under Sections 419/420 IPC, at Police Station Zaidpur, District Barabanki;
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Superintendant of Police, Barabanki, the opposite Party No. 2, and the Investigating Officer, Case Crime No. 797/11, under Sections 419/420 IPC, Police Station, Zaidpur, District Barabanki, the opposite party No. 3, to defer the arrest of the petitioner until collection of the credible evidence sufficient for filing the charge-sheet by following the amended proviso to Sections 41(1)(b) read with Section 41A CrPC;
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki, the opposite party No. 2, for compliance of the provision of Sections 41(1)(b) and 41A CrPC in the investigation of the impugned FIR dated 21.12.2011 contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition, lodged in crime No. 797/11, under Sections 419/420 IPC, Zaidpur, District Barabanki; and
iv) Allow this writ petition with costs.
(3.)The High Court, after hearing the parties as well as the State, dismissed the writ petition on 9.1.2012 and passed the following order:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate. Under challenge in the instant writ petition is FIR relating to Case Crime No. 797 of 2011, under Sections 419 & 420 IPC, police station Zaidpur, district Barabanki. We have gone through the FIR, which discloses commission of cognizable offence, as such, the same cannot be quashed. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
However, the petitioner being lady, it is provided that if she surrenders and moves application for bail the same shall be considered and decided by the courts below expeditiously."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.