Petitioner challenged an FIR under the N.D.P.S. Act claiming he was a landlord with no involvement in a contraband case. The court held the FIR disclosed a cognisable offence and dismissed the petition, refusing to quash the FIR or stay arrest.
Petitioner's prayer to quash the FIR and stay 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. - 23734 of 2018
Petitioner :- Rajveer Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhaskar Bhadra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Bhaskar Bhadra, 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 15.8.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 424 of 2018 under sections 8/15 N.D.P.S. Act, police station Cantt., District Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is the owner of the premisses from where the contraband article is said to have been recovered. He submits that the petitioner has given the said premises on rent to one Suresh Pal copy of the rent deed is annexed as annexure-2 to the present petition. He submits that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but he has no concern with the present case, hence the present F.I.R. 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 as per the allegation in the F.I.R. the petitioner was having license of Poppy straw which was cancelled then too the petitioner was keeping the contraband article in his premises.
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 :- 29.8.2018 Shiraz
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. under the N.D.P.S. Act should be quashed as it discloses no cognisable offence against the petitioner.
Whether the petitioners are liable to arrest or face investigation despite claiming lack of concern with the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajveer Gupta
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
