The Full Bench dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and stay of arrest, holding that the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence thus precluding interference under precedent.
Disposition of the writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR and stay of arrest was refused.
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. - 22655 of 2018
Petitioner :- Prasanjeet Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Pandey,Sri Kamal Krishna(Sr. Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 22.7.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 698 of 2018, under Section 304, 308, 337, 338, 427, 228, 34 IPC, P.S. Masuri, District Ghaziabad.
On 20.8.2018, the following order was passed:-
"Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Mishra, learned AGA for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence has taken place on Khasra No. 173-M which is recorded in the name of M/s. B.S.A. Buildcon Private Ltd. and it is stated that petitioner's plot is adjacent to the said plot and he is not even remotely connected with the plot on which construction of the building operation was going on. He has also annexed the copy of the sale deed dated 30.04.2014.
Learned AGA shall verify the aforesaid facts.
Put up on 24.08.2018.
Office is directed to furnish a copy of this order to learned AGA for the State."
Learned A.G.A. states that petitioner is the share holder of Khasra No. 173, where the incident has taken place. It is stated that it is a green belt area and there is no Khasra No. 173-M.
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 .
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 A.P. Pandey
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. under Sections 304, 308, 337, 338, 427, 228, 34 IPC deserves quashing or stay of arrest given the allegations contain a cognizable offence.
Whether facts alleged in the FIR prima facie establish a cognizable offence that precludes interference with the investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Referred¶14
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Followed¶14
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalFollowed¶14
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 7 enactments
Prasanjeet
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Dinesh Kumar Singh
Ramesh Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
