The High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash the F.I.R. and stay arrest. The Court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and no statutory restriction prevented police investigation.
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. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1153 of 2019
Petitioner :- Bobi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gauri Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Pursuant to previous order dated 18.1.2019, Sri V.S. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. has reverted with instructions, which are taken on record.
Instructions do not indicate that the victim was ever subjected to medical examination. However, averments made in the F.I.R. disclose commission of a 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.
Order Date :- 6.2.2019 Ram Murti
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any ground for quashing the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner despite lack of medical examination of the victim.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Referred¶7
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Referred¶7
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶7
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Bobi
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
