A writ petition for quashing the FIR against the petitioner was dismissed. The High Court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and no statutory restriction barred police investigation.
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. - 13653 of 2018 Petitioner :- Amit Panchal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri A.K.Pandey,learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.P. Singh, 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 4.2.2018, registered as case crime No.103 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 342, 354, 354-B, 354-C I.P.C., Police Station Ghaziabad Kotwali, District Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with malaife intention. He further submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged after 11 months of the incident and the petitionr has no concern with the Company in question. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the same 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 petitioner. 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 FIR disclosed prima facie a cognizable offence warranting quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Referred¶7
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Referred¶7
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶7
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Amit Panchal
State Of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
