Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR under various IPC sections. The Court held that as charged acts constituted cognizable offences, the FIR could not be quashed, and the petition was dismissed.
The quashing of the FIR and stay of arrest were rejected; the writ petition 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. - 3571 of 2019 Petitioner :- Jay Singh And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, the 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 4.1.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 09 of 2019, under sections 147,323,504,506,452,427,354(B) IPC P.S. Tharwai District Prayagraj.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the F.I.R arises out of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, belated by 3 days, informant is a lawyer with criminal antecedents, a case of no injury, no offences are made out, F.I.R to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A, has opposed the submission on the ground that the F.I.R inter-alia alleges that mother of the informant was dragged by the petitioners inside her house in a semi nude state, cognizable offences are made 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 dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.2.2019 RS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution when the FIR discloses prima facie a cognizable offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Referred¶8
(2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Referred¶8
(2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
AIR 1992 SC 604 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Jay Singh And 4 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
