Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13933 of 2018 Petitioner :- Arvind And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shiva Tripathi
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shiva Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 29.3.2018, registered as case crime no.107 of 2018, u/s 323, 452 and 354(B) IPC, P.S. Charthawal, district Muzaffarnagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that three persons have sustained injuries on their person. The allegations made against the petitioners are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless, hence present FIR be quashed. The co-accused of the present case has already been granted bail by the competent court.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has made statement at Bar that the petitioner no.1 has been arrested by the police to which learned counsel for the petitioners states that he has no knowledge about the same.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) 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.
From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners. The prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.
However, the court below while considering the bail application of the petitioner shall consider the fact that co-accused has already been granted bail by the competent court, if the petitioner moves bail application before the court below.
With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Gaurav