The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and restraint on arrest. The court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and disposed of the petition without expressing an opinion on merits.
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. - 5448 of 2021
Petitioner :- Rajmani Pasi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 14 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Kesari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR No. 165 of 2021, dated 05.05.2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (D), 3(1) (Dha) SC/St Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (Amended, 2015), Police Station Manda, District Prayagraj.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned FIR No. 165 of 2021, dated 05.05.2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (D), 3(1) (Dha) SC/St Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (Amended, 2015), Police Station Manda, District Prayagraj".
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigating officer is not properly investigating the matter and collusively not taking action against the accused.
Be that as it may, the petitioner has a remedy under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. to move an appropriate application before the concerned Magistrate. This legal position has also been clarified by this court vide judgment dated 27.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15692 of 2020 (Ajay Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others) .
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any good reason to entertain this writ petition. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. In the event such an application is filed by the petitioner, it is expected that the concerned Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 T.S.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court should entertain the writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR and staying of arrest when the alternative remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is available.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajay Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶10
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15692 of 2020 (Ajay Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others)
Rajmani Pasi
State Of U.P.
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
