Dismissed

Shishank Vashistha v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2019CRLP/4328/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a criminal miscellaneous writ petition dismissed the petition seeking quashing of an FIR. The court held that cognizable offences were made out from the FIR allegations, precluding interference with the investigation under relevant judicial precedents.

What did the court decide?

The relief sought for quashing of the FIR and staying the arrest was dismissed.

Shishank Vashistha Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4328 of 2019

¶2

Petitioner :- Shishank Vashistha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Srivastava,Saksham Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGA and perused the impugned F.I.R, as well as material brought on record.

¶5

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R, dated 25.1.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 69 of 2019, under sections 307,504,506 IPC P.S. Banna District Aligarh.

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that F.I.R is malafidely motivated, on the contrary one Gaurav Thakur fired a shot upon respondent no.3 who had a narrow escape and subsequently the petitioner fired in defence of informant, on account of misunderstanding the F.I.R has been lodged, same is liable to be quashed.

¶7

Learned A.G.A, rightly submitted that complicity of both the petitioner and Varun Thakur of firing at the informant is made out from the F.I.R, petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 15.2.2019 RS

Shishank Vashistha v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shishank Vashistha v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hariom @ Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjay Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Golu @ Haseen Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Kamran Alias Kammu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jaswant Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others