Dismissed

Shyamu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Aug 2018CRLP/22214/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR under IPC sections 452, 376, and 506, the court held that no interference with investigation or stay of arrest is permissible if a cognizable offence is ex-facie discernible from FIR allegations. Finding a prima facie offence made out, the writ petition was dismissed without granting relief.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the FIR and stay of arrest is refused; the writ petition is dismissed.

Shyamu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22214 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shyamu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶2

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prabhash Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶3

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 15.07.2018 registered as case crime no. 460 of 2018, under Sections 452, 376, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and 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.

¶5

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses the cognizable offence.

¶6

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.

¶7

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.

¶8

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶9

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

¶10

Order Date :- 14.8.2018/Ashok Gupta

Shyamu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamu 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

Devendra Kumar Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Geetanjali @ Gauri and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sultan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sabir Alam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Naseem @ Kale Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ompal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others