Dismissed

Rituparn and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2019CRLP/9885/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petitioners' plea to quash the FIR alleging factional politics and retaliatory assault. Applying the Full Bench view that no cognizable offence is ex-facie discernible only if not made out in the FIR, the Court held the FIR discloses offences and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the F.I.R. dated 6.3.2019 and staying of arrest rejected.

Rituparn and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9885 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Rituparn And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 6.3.2019, registered in Case Crime No.0082/2019, under Sections 147/148/149/307/342/506 IPC, P.S. Chhapar, Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is a dispute between both the parties on account of local village factional politics, an N.C.R. No.26 of 2018 was lodged on 21.6.2018 against the brother of respondent no.3 in which charge-sheet has been submitted on 30.8.2018, in retaliation thereto, informant side on 6.3.2019 at about 8 AM, assaulted petitioners with deadly weapon in respect of which FIR as Case Crime No.0081/2019, under Sections 147/148/149/307/452/506 IPC was lodged same day at 1.25 PM, FIR is malafidely motivated, injuries of the informant side are manipulated, no offence is made out against the petitioners, FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶8

The learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for quashing the FIR, which discloses cognizable offences and submitted that contentions of the petitioners cannot be examined at this stage.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 16.4.2019 Chandra

Rituparn and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rituparn and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Saumya Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rishabh Rawat and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gulfam and 13 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishal Sharma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Waris Ali and 5 Others Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ramesh Yadav and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others