Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR under cheating and forgery sections. The Court rejected the plea to quash the FIR or stay arrest as a cognizable offence was discernible from the allegations in the current case circumstances.
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. - 4792 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ramakant Tyagi @ Narendra Kumar Tyagi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Supplementary affidavit annexing certified copy of the FIR, filed today on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 14.02.2019, registered as Case Crime No. 0033 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 470, 471, 120-B and Section 4 and 10 of U.P. Public Examination Act, 1998, PS- Saiyan, District- Agra.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is the principal of the college, FIR is malafidely motivated as co-accused herein with the view to save himself implicated the petitioner for ulterior motive.
The learned A.G.A has opposed the submission and rightly submitted that matters related, when imposter appearing in a board examination, complicity is not ruled out.
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 dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.2.2019/V.S.Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR registered under cheating and forgery sections requires quashing or stay of arrest in a case involving imposters in board examinations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Explained¶9
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Explained¶9
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalExplained¶9
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Ramakant Tyagi @ Narendra Kumar Tyagi
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
