The Full Bench dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The court held that cognizable offences were prima facie made out, and no statutory restriction prevented police investigation.
Petition for quashing of FIR is dismissed; no stay of arrest granted.
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. - 1968 of 2019
Petitioner :- Girish Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Sonker Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Ravindra Sonaker, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA 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 3.1.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 05 of 2019, under sections 353, 332, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a false case for ulterior motives as the petitioner is a photographer who took certain photograph of the brawl that ensued between the informant and the accused Vinay Singh, the alleged press reporter in local hindi daily coupled with the fact that in the said transaction, petitioner too suffered injuries in respect of which he lodged a complaint on 25.1.2019.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and submitted that cognizable offences are made out.
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 the FIR disclosing cognizable offences is maintainable and requires quashing.
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 2 enactments
Girish Pratap Singh
State Of U.P.
Rest of Respondents
Pankaj Naqvi
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
