Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25414 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bipin Babu Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pawan Shukla, learned AGA 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 12.7.2018, registered as case crime no.155 of 2018, u/s 379, 411 IPC, 3, 57, 7 U.P. Upkhanij (Parihar) Niyamawali 1963 and 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Regularization of Development) Act, 1957, P.S. Chopan, district Sonbhadra.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. He is the owner of the truck in question on which crushed stones were loaded. When the petitioner moved an application for release of the truck, he came to know that FIR has been lodged. The driver of the vehicle has already been granted bail by the competent court. The allegations made against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless, hence present FIR be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR and submitted that the truck of the petitioner was used for transportation of the crushed stones and the driver was not having any documents regarding the said crushed stones. The FIR discloses the 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 petitioner. 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 who is the driver of the vehicle 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 :- 13.9.2018 Gaurav