Petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging no offence was made out against him. Court held prima facie a cognizable offence was made out, citing Full Bench views, and dismissed the petition.
Prayer for quashing of F.I.R. and staying 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. - 37961 of 2018
Petitioner :- Balram Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Sri D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P. Tripathi, learned AGA 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 1.10.2018, registered as case crime no.259 of 2018, u/s 307 IPC, P.S. Derapur, district Rama Bai Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR. His name has come into light in the statement of co-accused Sonu Kushwaha @ Rajveer. As per FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner. The allegations made against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless, hence present FIR be quashed.
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 petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 21.12.2018 Gaurav
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence justifying refusal to quash it or stay arrest.
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
Balram Yadav
State Of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
