Petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging false implication for raising voice against police. Court held FIR disclosed cognizable offence with illegal liquor recovery and dismissed petition.
The prayer for quashing of the FIR and staying arrest was 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. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8342 of 2020
Petitioner :- Sumit Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Kumari Meena, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State 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 07.04.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 0164 of 2020, under Section 188 I.P.C. and Section 63, 60(3) U.P. Excise Act, Police Station-Jhinjhana, District Shamli.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation levelled for recovery of liquor from his farm house against the petitioner is false, frivolous and baseless. He further submits that the petitioner who is a journalist has raised voice against the atrocities of the police personnel, hence he was falsely implicated in the present case.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence and huge quantity of illegal liquor along with other items were recovered from the farmhouse of the petitioner.
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 :- 27.8.2020 SA
(Ajit Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR disclosing a cognizable offence and recovery of illegal liquor warrants quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶9
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sumit Kumar
State Of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
