Criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of FIR dismissed. High Court held that prima facie cognizable offence is made out based on FIR allegations, preventing interference with investigation or staying arrest.
Relief sought for quashing of FIR denied; petition 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. - 3556 of 2019
Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Srivastava,Sandeep Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Abhishek Srivastava, 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 26.12.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0639 of 2018, under sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Nawabganj District Bareilly.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR lodged by the grandmother of petitioner no. 1 is mala fidely motivated, dispute, if any, is civil in nature, criminality is deliberately assigned for ulterior motive, FIR be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. rightly opposed the submission on the ground that the offences are serious involving the grandmother as victim, merely because civil option is also available, criminality cannot be ruled out, petition is liable to be dismissed.
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 :- 11.2.2019/Ram Murti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR should be quashed on grounds of malafide motivation and civil dispute character.
Whether cognizable offence is ex-facie discernible from the allegations in the FIR.
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
Arvind Kumar And 3 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
