Jeetu vs State Of U.P. And Others on 4 January, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Jeetu vs State Of U.P. And Others on 4 January, 2010
Court No. - 41

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26457 of 2009

Petitioner :- Jeetu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Anand Kumar Tiwari
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. 1167 of 2009 under section 307
I.P.C. and section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act,
P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Banda.

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 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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *