Osama vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:105982
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a First Information Report is supported by a medico-legal report documenting injuries consistent with the allegations of assault, a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will not quash the FIR at the petition stage, as the credibility of the complainant's account and the veracity of the petitioner's defence are matters to be determined during investigation and trial, not through exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr. Ghanshyam Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned FIR dated 22.04.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 52 of 2026 under Section 126 (2), 115 (2), 352, 351 (2) of BNs, Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur.
A perusal of the impugned FIR shows that the informant was assaulted by the petitioner- Osama and his companion after being waylaid when he was on his way to home to the place of one Amit Saxena. The assault by the two men employing blows was so severe that the medico-legal report of injury shows a traumatic swelling 2 cm x 2 cm over the left side of chest, 1 cm above the left nipple and they are advised to be X-rayed.
The supplementary report shows no abnormality detected but this fact does not detract from what was noticed in the medico legal report dated 22.04.2026. As a result of assault, the victim suffered a traumatic swelling on the chest which is a vital part of the body. The story of assault, therefore, cannot be disbelieved, at least in the present petition, for quashing the FIR.
Whatever the petitioner argues constitutes his disputed defence, the truth of which we cannot examine in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. All those matters have to be probed during investigation and if the petitioner found charge-sheeted, thrashed at the trial.
In the circumstances, we decline to interfere with the impugned FIR. This petition is dismissed.
(Tarun Saxena,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)
May 7, 2026
C. MANI/ Prashant
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free