Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of an N.D.P.S. Act FIR. The court held that a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, rejecting the claim of false implication. The petition was dismissed without interference in investigation.
Quashing of the FIR and stay of arrest were denied.
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. - 44 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18044 of 2019
Petitioner :- Munnu Mishra @ Manbodh Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Nath Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Counter affidavit has been filed today, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Amar Nath Vishwakarma, 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.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 28.04.2019, registered as Case Crime No. 174 of 2019, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case 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.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence and submits that as the contraband of 35 kg ganga has been recovered and the petitioner has fled away from the place of occurrence.
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.
(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 1.8.2019/A. Tripathi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. disclosing a cognizable offence under the N.D.P.S. Act is liable to be quashed.
Whether there is any statutory restriction on the police power to investigate the case.
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
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Munnu Mishra @ Manbodh Mishra
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Ramesh Sinha
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
