The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an F.I.R. under sections 363, 366, and 506 IPC. Relying on precedents, the court held that a cognizable offence was disclosed, precluding interference with the investigation or 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. - 3593 of 2019
Petitioner :- Pooja And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arunkumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 15.1.2019 vide Case Crime No. 022 of 2019 under sections 363,366,506 I.P.C. P.S. Gauri Bazar district Deoria.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are the sisters, mother and maternal grand father of the coaccused Shiv Kumar @ Bholu who is alleged to have eloped with the daughter of respondent no. 4 but does not dispute that till date the whereabouts of the informant are not known.
The learned A.G.A has opposed the submission.
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 :- 13.2.2019
N.A.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. disclosing cognizable offence justifies quashing or staying arrest under the relevant Full Bench view.
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
Pooja 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
