This criminal miscellaneous writ petition sought quashing of an FIR alleging cognizable offence. The court held that cognizable offences are discernible from allegations and no ground exists for quashing the FIR or staying arrest, dismissing the writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed; no ground for quashing FIR or staying 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. - 3320 of 2019 Petitioner :- Firoz And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Waseem Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pulak Ganguly
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Mohammad Waseem, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.R. Pandey, learned AGA, Sri Pulak Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 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 27.8.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 497 of 2018, under sections 452, 323, 504 and 308 IPC P.S. Prem Nagar District Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to old enmity and mohalla party bandi, in fact respondent no. 4 fell down from the motor cycle in which he sustained injury, petitioners did not cause any injury, allegations levelled against them are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless, , no offence is made out against the petitioners, hence, the FIR be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. rightly submits that an above ground F.I.R. cannot be quashed, 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.
No ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R or staying the arrest of the petitioners.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.2.2019 Ram Murti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. registered under sections 452, 323, 504 and 308 IPC can be quashed as cognizable offence is not out
Whether there exists any ground for staying the arrest of the petitioners in an FIR involving cognizable offences
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)Referred¶7
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)Referred¶7
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604)Referred¶7
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Firoz And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Pankaj Naqvi
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
