Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR under various IPC sections. The court held that a prima facie cognizable offence is made out and no interference with investigation is tenable, dismissing the petition.
The writ petition for quashing the FIR is dismissed. No direction issued to quash the FIR or stay arrest.
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. - 6231 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ravind And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard 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 04.02.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0011 of 2019, under sections 323, 452, 324, 504, 506, 427 IPC, P.S.- Kagarol, District- Agra.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR is in retaliation to the FIR lodged by petitioner no.3 on 22.2.2014 and an NCR filed by petitioner no.1 on 30.01.2019 against the relatives of the informant, the impugned FIR is highly belated by 7 days, 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, and submits that the FIR cannot be quashed and the remedy lies else where, 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 :- 7.3.2019 Fhd.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR warrants quashing as no cognizable offence is ex-facie discernible from its allegations
Whether the petitioners' relocation or belatedness of the FIR precludes investigation
Whether the Full Bench view on non-interference with investigation barring ex-facie discernibility of a non-cognizable offence applies
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
Ravind And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Pankaj Naqvi
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
