Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging false and baseless charges. The Court held since a cognizable offence appeared prima facie, there was no ground for quashing, and dismissed the petition citing Supreme Court standards.
Writ petition dismissed; no ground for quashing the FIR or staying 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. - 20862 of 2018
Petitioner :- Anshul Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.K. Verma, learned AGA 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 25.7.2018, registered as case crime no.542 of 2018, u/s 3/7 E.C. Act, P.S. Kotwali Kannauj, district Kannauj.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a Peon in the establishment of the co-accused Smt. Vimla Devi. The allegations made against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless, hence present FIR be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses the 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.
Taking into account the nature of allegations made against the petitioner and also 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 :- 2.8.2018 Gaurav
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence thereby precluding its quashing
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Applied¶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
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anshul
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
