The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. Finding that a cognizable offence was prima facie made out under IPC Sections 457 and 380, the Court held there was no ground to interfere with the investigation.
The petition for quashing the FIR and staying arrest is 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. - 22153 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ompal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Maohammd Nadeem,Dur Vijay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Maohammd Nadeem, 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 03.04.2017 and police report dated 01.07.2018, registered as case crime no. 512 of 2017, under Sections 457, 380 I.P.C., Police Station Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner. 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.
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 :- 14.8.2018/Ashok Gupta
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the FIR when a cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations.
Whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence warranting dismissal of the quashing petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Relied on¶6
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Relied on¶6
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶6
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ompal
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
Ramesh Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
