Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR under the N.D.P.S. Act, claiming no involvement despite premises name. Court held a prima facie cognizable offence was evident and dismissed the writ petition.
Prayer for quashing of the FIR and staying the 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. - 23760 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. 423 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 High Court is justified in quashing the FIR under Sections 8/15 N.D.P.S. Act.
Whether a prima facie cognizable offence is made out based on 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
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
