Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC. The court held that prima facie a cognizable offence is made out and dismissed the petition.
Prayer for quashing of the FIR and staying the arrest of the petitioners 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. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2261 of 2018
Petitioner :- Surajpal And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pratibha Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- GA
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Ms. Pratibha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vikas Sahai, 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 23.11.2017, registered as case crime no.328 of 2017, u/s 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Dholna, district Kasganj (Kanshiram Nagar).
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are villagers who are not related to in-laws of the deceased, hence Section 304-B, 201 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act is not applicable against them. The allegations made against the petitioners are absolutely, frivolous and baseless, hence present FIR be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR and submitted that the dead-body of the deceased was disposed of without informing the parents of the deceased and the participation of the petitioners in the incident cannot be ruled out as the dead-body has been disposed of.
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.
(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 1.2.2018 Gaurav
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned FIR dated 23.11.2017 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC is liable to be quashed.
Whether there is any statutory restriction preventing the police from investigating the allegations.
If prima facie no cognizable offence is made out from the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Explained¶9
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Explained¶9
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalExplained¶9
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Surajpal And 4 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Ramesh Sinha
Krishna Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
