Criminal Misc. Writ Petition filed for quashing an FIR under Section 307 IPC. Petitioners argued malafide motives and retaliation. Court held no cognizable offence lacked if FIR disclosed it, citing Full Bench precedents. Petition dismissed.
Quashing of the FIR and stay of arrest dismissed.
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. - 7030 of 2019
Petitioner :- Haqiqat And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Mayank Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 2.3.2019, registered as Case Crime No.66/2019, under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Bhawanpur, Meerut.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it's a case of no injury, allegations made in the FIR are malafidely motivated, which is in retaliation to the civil proceedings, initiated by the petitioners against the informant side, FIR be quashed.
The learned A.G.A has opposed the submission on the ground that Section 307 IPC can be invoked even there are no injuries, FIR discloses cognizable offence, which cannot be quashed.
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 :- 15.3.2019 Chandra
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing of the FIR under Section 307 IPC can be allowed despite prima facie cognizable offence.
Whether the allegations made in the FIR are malafidely motivated and retaliation to civil proceedings warrants quashing.
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
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Haqiqat And Another
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
