Writ petition filed to quash an FIR alleging false harassment and lack of cognizable offence. Court found prima facie a cognizable offence existed, dismissing the petition but allowing a bail application upon surrender.
FIR not quashed; bail prayer to be considered expeditiously if petitioners appear or surrender.
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. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7051 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rohan (Minor) And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hemant Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 19.6.2020 registered as Case Crime No.291 of 2020, under Sections 504,308,323 IPC, P.S. Aurangabad, District Bulandshahr.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed on the basis of false allegations made against them while prima facie no cognizable offence is made out pursuant to the FIR lodged by the respondent no.4. Hence the FIR deserves to be quashed.
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.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is provided that if the petitioners appear or surrender before the Court concerned and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 10.7.2020 M. Tariq
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the FIR deserves to be quashed as the petitioners are being unnecessarily harassed on the basis of false allegations.
Whether prima facie no cognizable offence is made out pursuant to the FIR lodged.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56)ACC 433
Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶9
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rohan (Minor) And 3 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Naheed Ara Moonis
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
