This court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an F.I.R. The trial court held that the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence requiring investigation, thus precluding interference by this court.
The writ petition was dismissed.
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. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12083 of 2019
Petitioner :- Gajendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Shukla. Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jitendra Singh
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and perused the record.
The instant petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. dated 23.4.2019 registered as case crime No. 311 of 2019 under Section 406, 504, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Highway, District- Mathura.
The allegation in the impugned first information report is that the informant, for the purpose of transporting goods, had taken truck bearing no. MP-07- HB-6401, owned by the petitioner, on hire. It is alleged that, thereafter, 600 bags of wheat were loaded in the truck, whose truck driver was Rajneesh and cleaner was Ajai Saxena. It is alleged that the truck and the loaded goods did not reach its destination. It is alleged that when informant contacted the petitioner (truck owner), the petitioner threatened the informant and also disclosed that all what had to happen has happened with his consent and he dare not do any thing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner had only provided the truck on hire therefore, if the truck driver and cleaner committed any offence, there would be no vicarious liability of the petitioner.
Sri Jitendra Singh, who is appearing on behalf of the informant (respondent no. 3), has filed an affidavit disclosing therewith statement of the co-accused, Rajneesh, recorded during the course of investigation. It has been submitted that from the statement of the said accused it appears that there was a conspiracy in which the petitioner is also involved.
Be that as it may, since the allegation in the impugned first information report discloses commission of cognizable offence, the matter would have to be investigated to find out culpability of the persons involved in the crime and, therefore, no case for
interference by this Court is made out.
The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply for bail.
O rder Date :- 7.5.2019
A. Pt. Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. disclosing commission of a cognizable offence warrants quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Gajendra Singh
State Of U.P.
Manoj Misra
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
