The High Court dismissed a Criminal Writ Petition seeking quashing of an F.I.R. The court held that a cognizable offence was prima facie made out and found no grounds for interference with the investigation or arrest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13649 of 2018 Petitioner :- Yatendra Alias Chhotu And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Bhushan Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Sri A.K.Gautam, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioners today in Court, which is taken on record. He states that he has taken 'No Objection' from Sri B.B.Upadhyay, the earlier counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
Heard Sri A.K.Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K.Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 5.1.2018, registered as case crime No.6 of 2018, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Kheragarh, District Agra.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are cross reports of the incident in which both sides have received injuries. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless.No offence is made out out against the petitioners, hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses cognizable offence.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.
From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 25.5.2018/NS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. discloses a cognizable offence warranting quashing and stay of arrest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶9
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Yatendra Alias Chhotu And 4 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Ramesh Sinha
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
