Dismissed

Bhajan Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2019CRLP/5313/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an F.I.R. alleging that no cognizable offence was made out. The court held that since a cognizable offence was discernible from the F.I.R. allegations, no ground existed to interfere with the investigation or stay arrest.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no quashing of F.I.R.; no stay of arrest.

Bhajan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5313 of 2019 Petitioner :- Bhajan Singh and 2 others Respondent :- State of U.P. and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayank Mishra,Tushar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Tanmay Verma,Vivek Kumar Srivastava

¶2

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

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.

¶4

Heard Sri Ayank Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA, Sri Vivek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant 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 23.1.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 12 of 2019, under sections 452, 354 (B), 323, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Hastinapur District Meerut.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is said to be 50% handicapped. Allegations are false and fabricated. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, which discloses cognizable offence and submitted that F.I.R. clearly shows that the petitioners trespassed the house of the informant and serious charge of outraging the modesty of the girl has been levelled against them.

¶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 petitioners.

¶10

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 5.3.2019/Ram Murti

Bhajan Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhajan Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Bhanu Pratap Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Laki Sachan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dhirendra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Othrs

Satish Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohit Tomar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others