Dismissed

Ashwani @ Avanish Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2019CRLP/18023/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the court examined a petition seeking quashing of an FIR lodged under sections 302 and 147 IPC. The petitioner, alleged to be a minor, claimed mere suspicion. The bench held the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, finding no statutory bar or merit for interference, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing of the FIR under sections 302 and 147 IPC is refused and the petition is dismissed.

Ashwani @ Avanish Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18023 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Ashwani @ Avanish Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anand Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.R. Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 16.05.2019, registered as case crime 208 of 2019, under sections 302 and 147 I.P.C., police station Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner is minor and only on the basis of suspicion he has been named in the FIR, though no offence as has been mentioned in the F.I.R. is made out against him, hence the present F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶8

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

¶9

The Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) 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 as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others (AIR 1992 SC 604) attended with further elaboration that observations and directions contained in Joginder Kumar's case (Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 contradict extension to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under article 226 and the same are intended to be observed in compliance by the Police, the breach whereof, it has been further elaborated, may entail action by way of

¶10

departmental proceeding or action under the contempt of Court Act.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioners has not brought forth anything cogent or convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction operating on the police to investigate the case.

¶12

Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and/therefore no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.

¶13

The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 26.7.2019 A. Tripathi

Ashwani @ Avanish Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwani @ Avanish Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Shamsher Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Sushila and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Vikash Bali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sachin and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chand and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others