Dismissed

Kamlesh Kumar Saini v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2018CRLP/24446/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court issued a single-judge order dismissing a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under the Essential Commodities Act. The Court held that a cognizable offence was prima facie made out, precluding interference with the investigation under established precedents.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of the FIR and staying the arrest of the petitioner was dismissed.

Kamlesh Kumar Saini Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24446 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Saini Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Girish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri N.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 28.08.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 401 of 2018, under Sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police StationKotwali Mau, District Mau.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 petitioner.

¶11

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 5.9.2018 AU

Kamlesh Kumar Saini v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamlesh Kumar Saini v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Virendra Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pradeep Kapoor and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramdas Sarvoham Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dhananjay Mishra @ Pintoo Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pradeep Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others