Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12379 of 2010 Petitioner :- Awadesh & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Amarnath Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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.290 of 2010, under sections 498A/304B
IPC read with section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S Sirsaganj,
District Firozabad.
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 petitioners 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 :- 13.7.2010
Naim