Dismissed

jitendra bhatt @ ratan bhatt @ jitendra sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2018CRLP/6605/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Full Bench in this court reiterated that there is no scope to interfere with the registration of an FIR under Article 226 when the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, unless statutory restrictions apply. Since the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, the petition to quash it was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of FIR is refused and the petition is dismissed.

jitendra bhatt @ ratan bhatt @ jitendra sharma Vs State… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6605 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Jitendra Bhatt @ Ratan Bhatt @ Jitendra Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh,Indrakesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶5

Affidavit of compliance has been filed by learned A.G.A. on behalf of respondent no. 3 which is taken on record. Sri A.N. Singh has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 4 which is also taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶7

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 23.2.2018 registered as case crime 61 of 2018 under section 306 I.P.C., police station Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has informed the Court that the statement of the victim under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have been recorded in which she has deposed against the petitioner, who has criminal antecedents and as per the statement of the victim, the petitioner used to tease and make physical relation with the victim and due to the terror of the petitioner the mother of the victim committed suicide, hence the participation of the petitioner in the crime cannot be ruled out.

¶9

The Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) 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 as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others (AIR 1992 SC 604) attended with further elaboration that observations and directions contained in Joginder Kumar's case (Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 contradict extension to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under article 226 and the same are intended to be observed in compliance by the Police, the breach whereof, it has been further elaborated, may entail action by way of departmental proceeding or action under the contempt of Court Act. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution as an alternative to anticipatory bail which is not invocable in the State of U.P. attended with further observation that what is not permissible to do directly cannot be done indirectly.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioners has not brought forth anything cogent or convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed

¶11

prima facie on the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction operating on the police to investigate the case.

¶12

Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and/therefore no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.

¶13

The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Shiraz

jitendra bhatt @ ratan bhatt @ jitendra sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

jitendra bhatt @ ratan bhatt @ jitendra sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vandana Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Barkat Ali and 6 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Smt. Preeti and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Shahzad Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Naveen and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Renu Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others