Court No. - 41 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26520 of 2009 Petitioner :- Darsu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Sec. Home, Lko.And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners learned A.G.Aappearing for the State.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. registered at case crime no.
305 of 2009 under sections 364 I.P.C. P.S. Ali Nagar District Chandauli.
The Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006
(56) ACC 433) 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 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 victim has not yet recovered. 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 :- 4.1.2010
MTA