Dismissed

Vikrant v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2020CRLP/10664/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and a stay on arrest under Sections 8B and 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The bench found that a cognizable offence was prima facie made out, and no ground existed to interfere with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing the FIR and staying the arrest of the petitioner was dismissed.

Vikrant Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10664 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Vikrant Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar Kuntal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri M.K. Kuntal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gambhir Singh, learned AGA.

¶6

This petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ, order or direction to quash the impunged FIR dated 23.07.2019 registering Case Crime No.118 of 2019, under Section 8B/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-Magorra, District-Mathura. It is further prayed that respondents be directed to not to arrest the petitioner in regard to said crime number.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a reputed person of the society and is absolutely innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the said crime. He was not arrested on the spot and nothing has been recovered from his possession. It is also submitted that no offence under Section 8B/20 N.D.P.S. Act is made out against the petitioner and, therefore, his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the constitution are violated.

¶8

Learned AGA in his turn submits that non-bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioner. He is not co-operating in the matter of investigation, and there is a FSL report substantiating the recovery of narcotic substance.

¶9

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that petitioner is a named

¶10

accused in the FIR. 'Ganja' was allegedly purchased from him. It is alleged that persons appreciated namely, Jagveer son of Brijmohan and Deshraj son of Govind Singh informed the Authorities that they had purchased narcotic substance @ Rs.5,000/- per kg. from Vikrant son of Manpal @ Guddu Pradhan. Therefore, prima facie, it cannot be said that petitioner is innocent and there is no material on record to rope him in the investigation.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 10.11.2020 Ashutosh

Vikrant v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikrant 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shole Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Durga Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Khemraj Singh @ Tillu Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Madhusudan and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Alka Chaudhary and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sridhar (Uma Shankar Dubey) and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others