The petitioner challenged the FIR in a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, claiming false implication and mala fides. The court held that a cognizable offence is discernible from the FIR, precluding interference with the investigation, and dismissed the petition.
None; the petition for quashing of the FIR and staying arrest was dismissed.
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. - 3331 of 2019
Petitioner :- Golu @ Haseen Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Khare Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 5.1.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0006/2019, under Sections 147/387/406/420/504/506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali City, Mahoba.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not an employee of the company, has been falsely implicated only for the reason that he happens to be a friend of co-accused Rahul Gupta, FIR is malafidely motivated, same is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A submitted that co-accused Rahul Gupta collected a sum of Rs.15,58,923/- from the public but never deposited in the bank, on inquiry he is alleged to have said that he is present at the house of one co-accused Manish Pandey, informant was called at the house of coaccused Manish Pandey wherein the petitioner along with other coaccused allegedly demanded Rs.50,000/- from the informant as well as hurled abuses and assaulted him.
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 :- 14.2.2019 Chandra
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the FIR under Sections 147/387/406/420/504/506 IPC as it is void against the petitioner.
Whether there is a prima facie cognizable offence made out from the allegations in the FIR to prevent interference with the investigation.
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
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Golu @ Haseen Khan
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Pankaj Naqvi
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
