Full Bench dismissed the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of FIR and stay of arrest. Court held that cognizable offences were discernible from FIR allegations, precluding interference under prior precedents.
No relief granted; FIR not quashed; arrest not 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. - 6994 of 2019
Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Udai Bhan Singh,Avanish Pratap 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 5.1.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 8 of 2018, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC P.S. Shikohabad District Firozabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an unemployed, he too is the victim of the fraud committed by the co-accused, he has been falsely implicated in the case, allegations levelled against him are malafidely motivated, petitioner is nowhere concerned with the alleged transaction, no offence is made out, F.I.R. be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. submitted that on the above contention, F.I.R. cannot be quashed as cognizable offences are disclosed against the petitioner.
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 :- 14.3.2019 Ram Murti
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR disclosing cognizable offences should be quashed upon allegations of false implication and malafide motive.
Whether dignity courts can interfere with investigation or stay arrest when cognizable offences are ex-facie discernible from FIR.
Whether prima facie cognizable offence is made out from the allegations in the FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Referred¶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
Rakesh Kumar Singh
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Pankaj Naqvi
Umesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
