The High Court rejected the petition praying for quashing of an F.I.R. alleging that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, thus barring interference absent statutory restrictions.
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. - 10715 of 2019
Petitioner :- Jamuna and 7 others Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kuwar Ritesh Kumar
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned AGA 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 21.3.2019 registered as Case Crime No.23 of 2019, under sections 308, 147, 323, 504 IPC P.S. Dheena, District Chandauli.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that it is cross case. Regarding an assault made by family members of respondent no.3, namely, Golu Singh, Ravi Singh, Amit Singh, Santosh Singh and Awadhesh Singh, petitioner no.5 lodged an F.I.R. against them which was registered as Case Crime No.24 of 2019 under Section 147, 323, 504 I.P.C., in retaliation as a cross-version, allegations in the impugned F.I.R. are wholly false, frivolous and concocted, the same be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, 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 petitioners.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Ram Murti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. disclosing a cognizable offence deprives this court of power to quash the same under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Whether the allegations being false and frivolous constitute a ground for quashing the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners.
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
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jamuna
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
