Court No. - 41 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 591 of 2010 Petitioner :- Raju Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Tripathi B.G. Bhai Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,V.K. Agnihotry Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the
complainant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. registered at
case crime no.596 of 2009, under Sections 363, 366, 368, 120B IPC
read with Section 3(i)(x) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S Goverdhan, District Mathura.
The Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P. &
others (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full
Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. & 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 Vs. Bhajan Lal &
others (AIR 1992 SC 604) attended with further elaboration that
observations and directions contained in Joginder Kumar’s case
(Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & 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 of Court Act. 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.
The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the victim has not
yet recovered, therefore, there is no ground for interference.
Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the
view that the victim is not yet recovered and 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 :- 13.1.2010
Mustaqeem.