Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14021 of 2010 Petitioner :- Prem Chand Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Rajeev Misra Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned A.G.A. appearing for
the State authorities.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the relief of a writ of
certiorari quashing the F.I.R. in case crime no.572 of 2010 under section 272
IPC PS Rampur Distt Jaunpur.
We have considered the submissions in all its pros and cons.
Be that as it may, attention is drawn to the Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh
@ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) in which this Court
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. 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 petitioner 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 :- 3.8.2010
MH