Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14009 of 2010 Petitioner :- Hari Singh & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Dharmendra Singhal Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned A.G.A. appearing
for the State authorities.
By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the relief of a writ of
certiorari quashing the F.I.R. in case crime no.294 of 2010 under section 498
A, 304 B, 201 IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act P.S. Jawan
District Aligarh. The allegations substantially are that the daughter of
respondent no.3 was murdered after 16 months of the marriage.
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 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 :- 3.8.2010
MH