The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under IPC and mineral laws. The petitioner claimed false implication in alleged illegal mining. The court held that a cognizable offence was prima facie made out, precluding quashing or arrest stay.
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. - 22436 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sagar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.P.Singh, 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 28.7.2018, registered as case crime No.193 of 2018, under Sections 379, 420 I.P.C., Sections 4, 21 Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, Rule 3, 57 of U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and Sections 4 & 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, P.S. Kabrai, District Mahoba.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with malafide intention. He further submitted that the name of the petitioner has been introduced on the basis of alleged statement of co-accused who are either drivers of the confiscated tractors or alleged contractor of Smt. Rajni Paliwal although the petitioner is partner with one Smt. Rajni Paliwal, copy of lease deed has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. He further submitted that there has been dispute between the parties regarding demarcation of the boundary-wall, for which lease deed was granted and it is alleged that petitioner was indulged in illegal mining beyond demarcation, which has been mentioned in the lease deed. He next argued that 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 and submitted that in the lease deed, name of the petitioner does not find find, to which learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is partner of Smt. Rajni Paliwal, the said fact has been mentioned in para-13 of the writ petition.
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 :- 18.8.2018/NS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR disclosing a cognizable offence should be quashed under Article 226.
Whether any statutory restriction operates on the police power to investigate this case.
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
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sagar Singh
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
