The High Court rejected a petition seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 420, 406 IPC and others. The Court held that a cognizable offence was prima facie made out and refused to interfere with the investigation.
Petition dismissed; petitioners directed to approach competent court for anticipatory bail/bail.
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. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18530 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ramesh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dheeraj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajnish Dubey
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned AGA; Shri Rajnish Dubey, learned counsel for the informant 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 21.9.2022 registered as Case Crime No.605 of 2022 under Section 420, 406, 323, 504, 506, 354, 376-D, 328 IPC, P.S. Bisrikh Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against them are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioners, hence, the same be quashed.
Learned A.G.A, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, which discloses cognizable offence. He has further submitted that truthfulness of allegations and establishment of guilt take place, when the investigation is done or trial proceeds. Probability, reliability or genuineness cannot be looked under Art.226 of the Constitution. The FIR can only be quashed in a writ jurisdiction, if the FIR does not discloses commission of offence and that too prior to framing of charges. As such it is submitted that no interfere is required in the matter.
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 dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 7.12.2022 SP/
Digitally signed by SURYA PRAKASH Date: 2022.12.09 10:16:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC as prima facie a cognizable offence is made out.
Whether anticipatory bail remains a viable remedy for the petitioners given the decision on FIR quashing.
Whether the allegations against the petitioners amount to a cognizable offence ex-facie.
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
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh And 3 Others
State Of U P And 2 Others
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Narendra Kumar Johari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
