Dismissed

Jalal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2019CRLP/10723/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the respondents filed an FIR under Sections 457, 380, and 506 IPC. The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR citing a civil dispute and false allegations. The Full Bench principles were applied, and the writ petition was dismissed as a cognizable offence was discernible from the allegations.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jalal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10723 of 2019 Petitioner :- Jalal And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Furquan Ahmad (Alvi) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shabana Nizam

¶3

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Furguan Ahmad (Alvi), learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned AGA and perused the impugned F.I.R, as well as material brought on record.

¶5

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R, dated 27.3.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0095 of 2019, under sections 457, 380 and 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Azamgarh.

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are landlord, respondent no.3 is tenant of a shop, a civil dispute is pending between the parties, allegations levelled against them are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioners, same be quashed.

¶7

Learned A.G.A, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, which discloses cognizable offence.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 25.4.2019 N.S.Rathour

Jalal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jalal and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Professor Royana Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Faim Ahmad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sartaj and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shashank Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hariom Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jamuna and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others