The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The Court held that since the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence, no ground existed for interfering with the investigation or staying the arrest of the petitioners, relying on established precedents.
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. - 21889 of 2018
Petitioner :- Rajat Raghav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 21.07.2018 registered as Case Crime No.263 of 2018 under Sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, PS. Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and the present FIR has been lodged with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment, hence the same is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR 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-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 10.8.2018/Madhurima
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing of the FIR under sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act can be allowed since the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.
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
Rajat Raghav And Another
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
