In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the court rejected the petitioners' plea to quash an F.I.R. alleging that no offences were made out. Relying on Full Bench precedents stating that quashing is not permissible if a cognizable offence is ex-facie discernible, the court dismissed the petition.
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. - 5799 of 2019
Petitioner :- Dhirendra And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Othrs Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshu Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Anshu Chaudhary, 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 16.12.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 373 of 2017, under sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 452, 354A, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Nidhauli, District Etah.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a cross-case, no offences are made out against the petitioners, FIR be quashed.
Learned A.G.A, rightly submitted that on above contention, FIR 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 petitioners.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.3.2019 N.S.Rathour
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. should be quashed in view of the submission that no offences are made out against the petitioners.
Whether a prima facie cognizable offence is discernible from the allegations in the F.I.R., thereby barring quashing under prevailing Full Bench precedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Relied on¶9
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Relied on¶9
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶9
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dhirendra And 5 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Othrs
Pankaj Naqvi
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
