Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13764 of 2010 Petitioner :- Girish Chandra & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Vijay Pratap Pandey Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the
complainant and the 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. 326 of 2010 under sections 452, 323, 427, 308 and 506
I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Ziyanpur, district Azamgarh.
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 ex-facie 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 learned counsel for the petitioners have 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 :- 30.7.2010
Shahnawaz