Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14028 of 2010 Petitioner :- Dezi Sabbarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Abhishek Tiwari Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned A.G.A. appearing for
the State authorities.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the relief of a writ of
certiorari quashing the F.I.R. in case crime no. 226 of 2010 under section
18/27 of Drug and Cosmetic Act and section 20/22/23 of N.D.P.S.Act P.S.Sarai
Inayat Allahabad. The case substantially is that the petitioner had been running
medical store without valid licence.
In connection with the argument advanced across the bar, attention is drawn to
the Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others
(2006 (56) ACC 433) in which this Court reiterated the view taken by the earlier
Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) that
there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest
unless cognizable offence is not exfacie 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 as laid down by the Apex Court in
various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others (AIR
1992 SC 604) attended with further elaboration that observations and
directions contained in Joginder Kumar’s case (Joginder Kumar v. State of
U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 contradict extension to the power of the
High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under Article 226 and the same
are intended to be observed in compliance by the Police, the breach whereof,
it has been further elaborated, may entail action by way of departmental
proceeding or action under the contempt. The Full Bench has further held that
it is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
constitution as an alternative to anticipatory bail which is not invocable in the
State of U.P. attended with further observation that what is not permissible to
do directly cannot be done indirectly.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought forth anything cogent or
convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on
the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction
operating on the police to investigate the case.
Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view
that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence
and therefore no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The
petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.8.2010
MH