Petition seeking quashing of FIR. Court held that the FIR discloses cognizable offences and barred interference. Granted direction to lower court to consider bail on merits.
PRAYER FOR QUASHING OF FIR REFUSED; DIRECTION TO LOWER COURT TO CONSIDER BAIL APPLICATION ON MERITS.
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. - 24544 of 2018 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Isrhad Husain, learned brief holder 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 02.04.2018 registered as Case Crime No.167 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308, 304, IPC, Police Station Mauaima, District Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused have granted bail from the court below, copy of the bail order has been annexed as annexure no.7 to the writ petition, hence the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses the 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 prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.
However, the court below while considering the bail application of the petitioner shall consider the facts as argued by the counsel for the petitioner, if the petitioner moves bail application before the court below.
With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 5.9.2018/VKG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR disclosing cognizable offences can be quashed.
Whether relief for quashing of FIR is available when cognizable offences are made out.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Anil Kumar Pal
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Ramesh Sinha
Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
