Dismissed

Manish @ Monu and 12 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2018CRLP/20991/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an F.I.R. under IPC sections relating to criminal intimidation, annoying behaviour, and attempt to murder. The Court held that the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence and no statutory restriction barred investigation.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. refused.

Manish @ Monu and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20991 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Manish @ Monu And 12 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyan Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri G.C. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 19.7.2018 registered as case crime 441 of 2018 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., police station Mavana, District Meerut.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are cross reports of the incident in which both sides have received injuries, hence the present F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence.

¶9

The Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) 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 as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others (AIR 1992 SC 604) attended with further elaboration that observations and directions contained in Joginder Kumar's case (Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 contradict extension to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under article 226 and the same are intended to be observed in compliance by the Police, the breach whereof, it has been further elaborated, may entail action by way of departmental proceeding or action under the contempt of Court Act. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution as an alternative to anticipatory bail which is not invocable in the State of U.P. attended with further observation that what is not permissible to do directly cannot be done indirectly.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioners has not brought forth anything cogent or convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction operating on the police to investigate the case.

¶11

Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and/therefore no ground is made out warranting

¶12

interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.

¶13

The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 3.8.2018 Shiraz

Manish @ Monu and 12 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish @ Monu and 12 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagmohan Singh H.C.P and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home U.P. Lkw. and 5 Ors.

Shashipal Vs State of U.P.

Dhruv Rathi Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Anurag Prasad Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Namiulla @ Mohammad Naim Ullah Faizi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others