Court No. - 41 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 485 of 2010 Petitioner :- Shamim And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Mathura Prasad Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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.
277 of 2009 under sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster Act, P.S Lalauli District Fatehpur.
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 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 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 have 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.
However, it is provided that in case the petitioners surrender and apply for bail within 15 days from
today before the courts below, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously on its
intrinsic merit by the courts below in accordance with the provisions of Gangsters Act.
Order Date :- 13.1.2010
Shahnawaz