Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14051 of 2010 Petitioner :- Surendra Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava 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.378 of 2010 C 11 under
section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 120B IPC P.S. Rudrapur Distt
Deoria.
Irrespective of merits of the case, 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