The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an F.I.R. alleging property transfer and cheating. The bench held that a prima facie cognizable offence was made out, barring interference per established precedents.
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. - 4361 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rashid And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shesh Narain Mishra,Satya Prakash Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri S.P.Maurya, 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 31.1.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 33 of 2019, under sections 420,467,468,471,120-B IPC P.S. Behat District Saharanpur.
The primary allegation against the petitioners is that they transferred the property in favour of informant and 2 others on 30.12.2013 while the same was mortgaged with the bank followed by a mutation order dated 20.12.14 in favour of purchasers, on the ground that outstandings will be paid by the private respondent out of which about Rs.11 lac was deposited but on account of default committed by respondent no.3 the bank applied for recall of mutation order, which came to be allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners could not place any document on record but for bare allegation that the bank had consented to the sale deed dated 30.12.13.
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 dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.2.2019 RS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. disclosed a cognizable offence warranting quashing under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Relied on¶11
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Relied on¶11
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalRelied on¶11
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Rashid And 2 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
