This Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an F.I.R. alleging false implication. The court held that prima facie a cognizable offence was discernible, precluding interference with the investigation.
PRAYER FOR QUASHING OF F.I.R. DISMISSED AND NO GROUNDS FOR STAYING ARREST FOUND.
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. - 14212 of 2018
Petitioner :- Haneef Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Sharma,Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Garun Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 15.5.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 351 of 2018, under Sections 393 and 307 I.P.C., Police Station- Kosikalan, District Mathura.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the case of no injury. The petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the F.I.R., no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. 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, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 29.5.2018/A.P. Pandey
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing of the F.I.R. should be allowed on the ground that no cognizable offence is made out.
Whether the allegations in the F.I.R. disclose a cognizable offence under Sections 393 and 307 I.P.C.
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
Haneef
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Ramesh Sinha
Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
