The court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 147/332/353/504 IPC. Relying on Full Bench precedents, the court held that since cognizable offences are discernible from the FIR allegations, no interference with the investigation or stay of arrest was warranted.
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. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10188 of 2019
Petitioner :- Hariom Gupta And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mazhar Ullah Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Mazhar Ullah, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 5.4.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0124/2019, under Sections 147/332/353/504 IPC, P.S. Shahjadnagar, Rampur.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated as they did not grease the palm of the police officials, who were using filthy language only due to reason that insurance of the car of the petitioner expired, the impugned FIR has been lodged only with a view to harass the petitioners, liable to be quashed.
The learned A.G.A submits that on above contention, FIR cannot be quashed as cognizable offences are disclosed.
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.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Chandra
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR cognizable under Sections 147/332/353/504 IPC is maintainable given the petitioners' contention of false implication.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Relied on¶9
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Relied on¶9
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalRelied on¶9
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Hariom Gupta And Another
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Naqvi
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
