Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26517 of 2018 Petitioner :- Dharmendra And 02 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Swati Agrawal,Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.R. Chaurasia, 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 19.8.2018, registered as case crime no.515 of 2018, u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 332, 353, 506, 34 IPC and 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act, P.S. Jamunapar, district Mathura.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was some quarrel between the Ex- Pradhan of the village and current Pradhan of the village. The dispute between the parties was reconciled but subsequently maarpeet took place between the parties. One of the co-accused Devendra Pahalwan against whom allegation for causing injury to Ex-Pradhan i.e. Surendra, is in jail. In the incident in question, the petitioners have also sustained injuries. The petitioners are the supporters of current Pradhan of the village on account of which they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which 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 petitioners. The prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.
However, the court below while considering the bail application of the petitioners shall consider the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the petitioners, if the petitioners move 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 :- 24.9.2018 Gaurav