Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging registration of an FIR alleged to disclose a serious cognizable offence including murder and dowry death. Bench held no prima facie bar to investigation and dismissed petition.
Petition for quashing of FIR and staying arrest 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. - 5779 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sundar Pal and 3 others Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vinayak Mithal
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Kumr Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA, Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 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 19.2.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0285 of 2019, under sections 313, 354, 328, 323, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that allegations are serious, it has been alleged that the victim was poisoned which resulted in miscarriage of foetus, said crime is henious disclosing cognizable offence and the possibility that it was a female foetus cannot be ruled out at this stage.
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, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.3.2019/Ram Murti
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence entitling the court to quash its registration.
Whether there is any statutory restriction on the police power to investigate the alleged crime.
Whether the petitioners' arrest should be stayed pending investigation.
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.Relied on¶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
Sundar Pal
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
