A Full Bench dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an F.I.R. under sections 498A, IPC sections 323, 504, 506, and 307, holding that cognizable offences were discernible from the allegations.
The prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and staying the arrest of the petitioners is 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. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9973 of 2019
Petitioner :- Shahnawaj And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Manoj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, 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 28.01.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0011 of 2019, under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. 3/3 D.P. Act, PS. Mahila Thana, District Bijnor.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated, The allegations are false and frivolous, no offence is made out, FIR 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 :- 29.4.2019 Rk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. disclosing a cognizable offence qualifies for quashing under Article 226.
Whether the allegations in the F.I.R. are false and frivolous such that no offence is made out.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Explained¶9
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Explained¶9
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalExplained¶9
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shahnawaj And 5 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
