In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered on the basis of a mobile call allegedly linked to a shooting incident. The court held that a prima facie cognizable offence was made out and aggrieved the petition, dismissing it.
The writ petition for quashing of the FIR and stay of arrest was 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. - 7032 of 2019
Petitioner :- Amir Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mohan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 1.3.2019, registered as Case Crime No.179/2019, under Sections 307/504 IPC, P.S. Ghatampur, Kanpur.
Matter relates to a heinous offence under Section 307 IPC and the contention of the petitioner that it was a mobile call of the petitioner that co-accused Ajju and Harshit are alleged to have fired a shot at the victim, causing injuries, could not be a ground to quash the FIR, as there was a proximate connection between a mobile call made by the petitioner and the fire-arm assault by the above named 2accused.
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 petition for quashing of the FIR can be allowed given the alleged proximate connection between a mobile call and the firearm assault.
Whether a prima facie cognizable offence is made out from the allegations in the FIR challenging the power of police investigation.
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 LalRelied on¶8
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amir
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
