The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition respondent seeking to quash an FIR under cheating and forgery sections. The bench held that cognizable offences are clearly made out from the FIR allegations, precluding quashing or stay of arrest.
Relief sought for quashing of FIR and staying arrest was denied.
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. - 6245 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sri Lal Patel and 2 others Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brahma Nand Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ramji Singh Patel
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 29.1.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 116 of 2019, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 406 IPC P.S. Cantt. District Varanasi.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that neither they took any money from the informant nor prepared any forged document, no offence is made out, FIR be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the submission on the ground that on above contentions 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 petitioners.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.3.2019/Ram Murti
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 406 IPC can be quashed on the ground that no offence is made out.
Whether detailed investigation is required to ascertain the truth of complaint in a case alleging cheating with forged documents.
Whether there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of Police to investigate the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Followed¶9
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Followed¶9
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalFollowed¶9
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Sri Lal Patel and 2 others
State of U.P. and 2 others
Pankaj Naqvi
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
