This court dismissed an application to quash an FIR under IPC and U.P. Excise Act. Relying on precedent, the court held that since a cognizable offence was prima facie discernible from the allegations, the FIR could not be quashed or arrest stayed.
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. - 5797 of 2019 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Respondent :- State of U P and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Raj Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Brij Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.N. Mulla, 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 30.1.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0013 of 2019, under section 420 I.P.C. and under Section 60, 63, 72 of U.P. Excise Act, P.S. Nagla Khangar District Firozabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated, he has neither imported, nor transported nor manufactured nor conveyance used in carrying such receptacle and further Truck No. PB 02 BF 9744 does not belong to him, no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner, F.I.R. be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. submitted that on the mere submissions as aforesaid, F.I.R. cannot be quashed as cognizable offences are disclosed.
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, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.3.2019/Ram Murti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR disclosing a cognizable offence can be quashed on allegations of fabrication and lack of prima facie evidence.
If no cognizable offence is ex-facie discernible from the FIR allegations or if statutory restrictions prevent police investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Relied on¶7
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Relied on¶7
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalRelied on¶7
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manoj Kumar
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
