Court No. - 41 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1167 of 2010 Petitioner :- Prasadi & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Digvijay Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and 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.1139 of 2009, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, P.S Katghar, District
Moradabad.
The Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P. & others
(2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in
Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. & 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 Vs. Bhajan Lal & others (AIR 1992 SC 604)
attended with further elaboration that observations and directions contained in
Joginder Kumar’s case (Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & 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 :- 28.1.2010
Mustaqeem.
