Court No. - 41 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 539 of 2010 Petitioner :- Imran Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Brij Lal Shukla Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 964 of 2009 under section 307 I.P.C. police station Nauchandi District Meerut.
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 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 :- 13.1.2010
o.k.