The Full Bench dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under IPC Sections 307, 504, and 506. The court ruled that since a cognizable offence was ex-facie evident from FIR allegations, no ground existed for quashing or staying arrest.
Writ petition dismissed; FIR not quashed; no stay on arrest.
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. - 25640 of 2019 Petitioner :- Om Prakash Tiwari And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Deepak Mishra, 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 07.11.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0351 of 2019, under sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Gagaha, District Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated, a case of no injury case, no offence is made out F.I.R. be quashed.
Learned A.G.A, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, which discloses cognizable offence, as existence of an injury is not a must for Section 307 I.P.C.
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 :- 17.12.2019 Radhika
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there exists a cognizable offence ex-facie discernible from the FIR to justify quashing and halting investigation.
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
Om Prakash Tiwari And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Pankaj Naqvi
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
