The Court dismissed the Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR. Relying on precedent, the Bench held that no interference with investigation is permissible if cogent offences are made out.
Quashing of FIR and staying arrest of petitioners denied.
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. - 23334 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sanni Yadav @ Mritunjay And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 26.6.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 261 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 308 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station-Gopiganj, District Bhadohi.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are cross reports of the incident. It has been further submitted that both sides have received injuries. Hence, present FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence.
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 :- 27.8.2018 Madhurima
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the investigation or stay arrest where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.
Whether the petitioners can succeed in their application for quashing of the FIR based on cross reports of injury.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Followed¶9
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Followed¶9
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalFollowed¶9
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanni Yadav @ Mritunjay And 3 Others
State Of U.P. And 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
