The Court dismissed a plea to quash an F.I.R. registered under sections 364, 304, and 506 IPC. Relying on precedents that no interference occurs unless the F.I.R. is ex-facie clear, the Court held that a cognizable offence was prima facie made out.
Petition dismissed; no ground exists for quashing the F.I.R. 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. - 3361 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pankaj and 3 others Respondent :- State Of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Shukla,Vipul Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Pursuant to the previous order of this Court dated 18.2.2019, the Investigating Officer is present along with the record.
Heard Ms. Nisha Tiwari & Sri Ashish Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 19.12.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 612 of 2018, under sections 364, 304, 506 IPC, P.S. Roza District Shahjahanpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against them are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioners, hence, the same be quashed.
Learned A.G.A, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, which discloses cognizable offence.
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.
Order Date :- 21.2.2019/Ram Murti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. discloses a cognizable offence justifying rejection of the petition for quashing
Whether there exists any ground to quash the F.I.R. or stay the arrest of the petitioners
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Relied on¶9
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Relied on¶9
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalRelied on¶9
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Pankaj and 3 others
State Of U.P. and 2 others
Pankaj Naqvi
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
