Back
SANJAY KAROL, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Mohd Arshad Khan – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, I can assist you in the following ways:
Summarize the key legal principles and findings related to the investigation process, protection from arrest, and the exercise of writ jurisdiction in criminal matters (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Clarify the scope and limitations of High Court powers under Article 226 of the Constitution concerning criminal proceedings, including the conditions under which investigations can be directed to be time-bound and the legal standards for protection from arrest (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Explain the legal reasoning behind the courts' decisions to set aside or uphold certain directions, particularly regarding investigation timelines and interim protections, along with the importance of applying legal principles to specific factual contexts (!) (!) .
Assist in understanding the procedural aspects, such as the implications of petitions for quashing, the role of investigation and cognizance, and the legal standards governing interim reliefs like protection from arrest (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Provide guidance on the legal principles related to the exercise of jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, ensure timely investigation, and uphold constitutional rights, without referencing specific case law (!) (!) (!) .
Help draft legal opinions, summaries, or arguments based on the principles and findings outlined in the document, tailored to your specific legal context or client needs.
Please specify how you would like to proceed or if there is a particular aspect you need assistance with.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
2. The State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal against the judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in petitions for quashing preferred by accused persons in connection with common FIR dated 24th May 2025 in Case Crime No. 33 of 2025 registered at Police Station, Nai Ki Mandi, District Agra under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘IPC’] and Sections 3/25/30 of the Arms Act 1959. Before us in Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.17272 of 2025, is Mohd. Arshad Khan2[Impugned Judgment in Criminal Misc Writ Petition No. 12162 of 2025], in Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No. 17579 of 2025 is Sanjay @Sanjay Kapoor3[Impugned Judgment in Criminal Misc Writ Petition No. 12526 of 2025] and in Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl) No.18150 of 2025 is Muhammad Zaid Khan4[Impugned Judgment in Criminal Misc Writ Petition No. 12173 of 2025]. They shall be collectively referred to as the accused- respondents.
3. The case arises from an investigation directed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, STF Headquarters, Lucknow, pursuant to an anonymous petition which, during inquiry, culminated in a s
None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law based solely on the language provided. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "abrogated" within the case summaries. Therefore, no case law in this list can be definitively categorized as bad law based on the available information.
[Followed]
None of the cases explicitly state they are following or are the authoritative current precedent in subsequent rulings within the provided text.
[Distinguished or Cited for Clarification]
The case <00100041432> discusses the scope of investigation rights and the powers of courts under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is a well-established principle. The language suggests it clarifies procedural rights rather than overrules or questions prior law.
The case <00100026514> emphasizes the conditions under which a successive bail application can be made, aligning with established principles of criminal procedure.
The case <00100002562> discusses the magistrate's power to discharge an accused and the availability of relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227, which are standard legal principles.
[Questioned or Clarified]
The case <00100001630> critically examines the validity of a government directive and emphasizes the judiciary's role in stepping in during executive inaction. It appears to clarify and reinforce judicial authority rather than overrule or reverse prior law.
The case <00100082707> discusses the importance of a speedy trial and proper sanctioning, aligning with established procedural safeguards.
The case <00100073833> discusses the power of quashing FIRs and the exercise of judicial discretion, which is consistent with existing legal standards.
The case <00100001355> discusses custodial violence and fundamental rights, but there is no indication of subsequent treatment that overruled or questioned this decision. Its treatment pattern remains unclear from the provided text.
The case <00100007920> addresses investigation procedures and the role of authorities, but again, no indication of subsequent overrule or reversal.
The case <00100041432> on investigation rights and the role of magistrates appears consistent with established law, but without explicit subsequent treatment, its current authoritative status is uncertain.
The case <00100082707> on speedy trial and sanctions is standard procedural law; its treatment pattern is not clarified here.
The case <00100073833> on quashing FIRs emphasizes judicial caution, a common principle, but no evidence of subsequent treatment that questions or overrules this.
In summary, based on the language provided, none of the cases explicitly show signs of being overruled or treated as bad law. They mostly reinforce established principles or clarify procedural rights. Without additional context or references to subsequent case law, their treatment remains largely unaltered and standard.
**Source :** Joginder Kumar VS State Of U. P. - Supreme Court D. K. Basu: Ashok K. Johari VS State Of W. B. : State Of U. P. - Supreme Court Abdul Rehman Antulay VS R. S. Nayak - Supreme Court Kalyan Chandra Sarkar VS Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav - Supreme Court Union of India VS Prakash P. Hinduja - Supreme Court Sakiri Vasu VS State of U. P. and others - Supreme Court Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu VS State of Bihar - Supreme Court State Of Haryana VS Bhajan Lal - Supreme Court Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited VS State of Maharashtra - Supreme Court Pepsi Foods VS Special Judicial Magistrate - Supreme Court All India Haj Umrah Tour Organizer Association Mumbai VS Union of India - Supreme Court Vineetnarain VS Union Of India - Supreme Court Hussainara Khotoons VS Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, Patna - Supreme Court Nilabati Behera Alias Lauta Behera (Through The Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee) VS State Of Orissa - Supreme Court Sunil Batra: Charles Gurmukh Sobraj VS Delhi Administration - Supreme Court
(1) Investigation of an offence is a long, winding road – It is full of ups and downs – Legal proceedings frequently intersect with investigation and affect its pace and direction.(2) Directing time ....
The court ruled that allegations of cheating are maintainable under criminal law even if they arise from an illegal agreement, emphasizing the necessity of investigation.
The arrest of an individual must comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, including providing specific grounds for arrest, which must be communicated in writing to ensure the accused's ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
