Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Adil vs State Of U.P. & Others on 2 July, 2010
Court No. - 42

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11498 of 2010

Petitioner :- Mohd. Adil
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Vishal Jaiswal
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. 618 of 2010 under swections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 I.P.C. and 7
Criminal Law Act police station Kalyanpur District Kanpur Nagar.
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 :- 2.7.2010
o.k.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

94 queries in 0.502 seconds.