The High Court quashed an application seeking quashing of an FIR under section 384 IPC. Finding that a prima facie cognizable offence was made out from the allegations, the Court dismissed the petition and denied relief to stay arrest.
Application for quashing of FIR and stay of arrest was dismissed.
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. - 5330 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Rajesh Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Rajan Tripathi, 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 15.2.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 23 of 2019, under section 384 IPC P.S. .Swaroop Nagar District Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR neither mention the time and date as when the extortion money was demanded nor it mentioned the phone numbers through which the money was demanded, it is malafidely motivated as respondents are involved in anti-social activities against which Petitioner no.1 has filed a Public Interest Litigation No.3521 of 2018 (Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P and others), allegations levelled against them are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioners, hence, the same be quashed.
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 :- 7.3.2019 RS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR disclosing a cognizable offence should be quashed.
Whether any statutory restriction operates on the power of the police to investigate the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Relied on¶8
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Explained¶8
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Rajesh Singh And Another
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Naqvi
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
