In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the court dismissed the petition for quashing an FIR. The bench held that since the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence prima facie, no ground existed for quashing or staying 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. - 53 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9720 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sartaj And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Badan Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mahendra Singh Yadav
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 5.3.2019 registered as Case Crime No.113 of 2019, under sections 498A, 323, 506, 307 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Khatauli, District- Muzaffar Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions states that the husband is not willing to deposit any amount in favour of the wife, petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against them are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, 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, 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 :- 23.4.2019//Fhd.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR disclosing a cognizable offence can be quashed under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Referred¶7
(2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Referred¶7
(2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶7
(AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Sartaj And 4 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
