Full Bench of Court No. 43 dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and stay of arrest. The bench held that prima facie a cognizable offence was made out, permitting police investigation.
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. - 6221 of 2019 Petitioner :- Krishn Pratap Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 28.01.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0094 of 2019, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. and 6, 9 U.P Sarvjanik Pariksha Adhiniyam, P.S.- Chakeri, District- Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated as neither the petitioner has been arrested from the centre nor any body was seated in his place in the examination hall, only allegation is that the admit card, I.D. and photo of the petitioner has been recovered from the possession of one Purushottam, which is planted one.
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 petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.3.2019//Fhd.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing of FIR under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and relevant sections of U.P. Sarvjanik Pariksha Adhiniyam stands succeeded given the prima facie existence of
Whether the prayer for quashing of FIR or staying of arrest can be granted as no statutory restriction operates on the power of Police to investigate a case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Followed¶8
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Followed¶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
Krishn Pratap
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
