Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20020 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ashok Miglani
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri B.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. appearing 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 5.7.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 392 of 2018 under sections 295A I.P.C. and 66 I.T. Act, police station Sheohara, District Bijnor.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the tenant of respondent no. 3. There is tenancy dispute between them on account of which present F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent no. 3 levelling false and frivolous allegation, hence the same is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence.
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 writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Shiraz