Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of FIR and stay on arrest. Court held that since cognizable offence is discernible and participation surfaced during investigation, interference with investigation is not permissible.
Prayer for quashing of FIR and staying arrest was 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. - 22651 of 2018
Petitioner :- Jay Shankar Yadav @ Panditji Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Lalit Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 20.03.2018 registered as Case Crime No.0118 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 201, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police StationKarchhana, District Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was registered against six named accused persons and three unknown persons and chargesheet has been submitted against two of them namely Nibu Lal and Anoopr Sharma and the name of the petitioner has come into light during the course of investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Nibu Lal but no role has been assigned to the petitioner.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses cognizable offence and submits that participation of the petitioner has come into light during the course of investigation.
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 :- 20.8.2018/Madhurima
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the FIR or stay arrest despite the disclosure of petitioner's participation during investigation.
Whether cognizable offence is discernible from the allegations in the FIR.
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
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jay Shankar Yadav @ Panditji
State Of U.P.
Nibu Lal
Anoopr Sharma
3 Others
Ramesh Sinha
Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
