In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the petitioner sought quashing of an F.I.R. alleging false implication in matrimonial and domestic violence offences. The High Court held that since the F.I.R. prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence, there was no ground for interference.
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. - 5483 of 2018 Petitioner :- Haris Husain @ Raja Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Sri A.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 7.1.2018 registered as Case Crime No.7 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P.Act, Police Station Ujhani, District Budaun.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is husband of respondent no.3 as the marriage between them was solemnized in the year 2015 and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the family members of the petitioner has earlier challenged the impugned FIR by means of filing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.4153 of 2018 in which their arrest has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 20.2.2018 disposing of the said writ petition, copy of which is annexed at page-28 of the writ petition. He next argued that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out out against the petitioners, hence, the same be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses 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.
(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 7.3.2018/NS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. discloses a cognizable offence to negate grounds for quashing.
Whether there is any statutory restriction barring police investigation in the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Followed¶6
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Followed¶6
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶6
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Haris Husain @ Raja
State Of U.P.
Krishna Pratap Singh
Ramesh Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
