Dismissed

Aszad and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2018CRLP/23810/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Full Bench dismissed the criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. Holding that a prima facie cognizable offence was made out from the allegations, the court found no ground for quashing or staying arrest, relying on established precedents.

What did the court decide?

PRayer for quashing of the FIR and staying arrest of the petitioners dismissed.

Aszad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23810 of 2018 Petitioner :- Aszad And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjay Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent no. 3 and Sri N. K. Verma learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶5

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 03.08.2018 registered as case crime no. 720 of 2018, under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioners and respondent no.3 are businessmen, their shops are adjacent to each other and some scuffle took place between the parties regarding customer for which an N.C.R. was lodged by father of the petitioners against the respondent no.3 and his sons on account of which the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent no.3 against the petitioners just as a pressure tactics to compromise in the N.C.R. which was lodged by the father of the petitioners. He next submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless, hence present FIR be quashed.

¶7

Learned counsel for the caveator as well as learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses the cognizable offence.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶11

Order Date :- 29.8.2018/Ashok Gupta

Aszad and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aszad and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Bhati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Avtar Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Jai Narayan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajesh Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajveer Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajveer Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others