This court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and a stay on arrest. The bench held that a cognizable offence was disclosed on the face of the FIR and injury report, leaving no ground for interference under relevant precedents.
The writ petition was dismissed without any stay being granted.
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. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10443 of 2020
Petitioner :- Satendra Saini And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Sri Sanjay Srivastava, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama today on behalf of the informant, which is taken on record
Heard Sri Rajesh Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant.
The petitioners in the present writ petition are seeking quashing of the F.I.R. dated 18.04.2020, lodged by the respondent no.4, registered as Case Crime No.135 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 313, 323, 307 I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station Aurangabad, District Bulandshahar with a further prayer not to arrest them in pursuance of the said first information report.
The allegation made in the first information report is that the daughter of informant Kusum was married to the petitioner no.1 on 27.04.2016 and soon after the marriage, the petitioners started making demand of additional dowry. It is further alleged that on 15.06.2019, the petitioners dropped Kusum to her maternal home and at that time she was two months pregnant. On 14.01.2020, Kusum delivered a child. It is further alleged that on 07.02.2020, the petitioner nos.1 and 2 came to the house of the informant and took away Kusum with them. On 16.04.2020 at about 12 o'clock, a phone call was made by Kusum to 112 number informing the police that petitioners tried to kill her by strangulation by her Dupatta. Injury report has been filed as Annexuer No.2 to the writ petition, which shows that though the injuries are simple in nature but the injury nos.1 and 2 may have been caused by round cord like structure and duration of injuries are shown to be 48-72 hours.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.1 has already filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act against the daughter of respondent no.4 on 20.11.2019, therefore, to exert pressure upon the petitioner no.1 as well as entire family, the impugned FIR has been lodged by
levelling false allegation.
Per contra learned A.G.A contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56) ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569 , after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. 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 FIR 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 FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners. A perusal of the first information report as well as injury report of the injured disclose commission of cognizable offence.
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 FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners.
In this view of the matter, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 15.10.2020
Ajeet
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of FIR and non-arrest is maintainable given the prima facie existence of a cognizable offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶12
Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56) ACC 433
Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶12
Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶12
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 · Who else cites this
Satendra Saini And 5 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
B. Amit Sthalekar
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
