Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition regarding quashing of an FIR registered under Section 60 Excise Act and Section 420 IPC. The petitioner claimed false implication, but the court held a cognizable offence was made out and dismissed the suit.
The prayer for quashing of the FIR and staying the arrest of the petitioner was dismissed.
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. - 21616 of 2018 Petitioner :- Tillu Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhaiya Ram Maurya,Rajnish Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri B.R.Maurya, 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 4.7.2018, registered as case crime No.435 of 2018, under Section 60 Excise Act and 420 I.P.C., P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with malafide intention only for the purpose of harassment. The petitioner is running a small shop/canteen and sells cigarette, bidi, matches box and plastic glass, tobacco etc. and he no concern with the liquor shop and contractor of liquor shop has fled away from the place of occurrence. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. No offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, 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. (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 exfacie 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 :- 9.8.2018/NS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the FIR on the ground that the allegations are false, frivolous and baseless.
Whether prima facie a cognizable offence is made out from the allegations contained in the FIR.
Whether the petition for quashing of the FIR and staying arrest is liable to be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Relied on¶7
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Relied on¶7
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalRelied on¶7
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Tillu Yadav
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
