Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of FIR under Section 148 CrPC. Court held that FIR discloses cognizable offence. Held that no ground is made out for interference under Article 226. Petition dismissed.
Prayer for quashing the FIR dated 27.4.2018 is refused and the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
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. - 21248 of 2018
Petitioner :- Dauji Ram And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri A.K.Mishra,learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 27.4.2018, registered as case crime No.32 of 2018, under Sections 323, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.s. Shakrauli, District Etah.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are cross reports of the incident in which both sides have received injuries. The allegations made against the petitioners are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless, hence present FIR is liable to 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. 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.
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.
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 interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 7.8.2018 NS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prayer for quashing of the FIR disclosing cognizable offence is maintainable.
Whether the Full Bench view in Ajit Singh and Satya Pal prevents interference with FIR registration unless cognizable offence is not discernible.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and othersExplained¶9
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and othersExplained¶9
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and othersExplained¶9
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and othersDistinguished¶9
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 · Who else cites this
Dauji Ram And 3 Others
State Of U.P. And 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
