Prasadi & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 28 January, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Prasadi & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 28 January, 2010
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 

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 


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

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 *