Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26187 of 2019 Petitioner :- Dharmveer Rajbhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramkailash Rajbhar,Rajesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ramkailash Rajbhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.S.B.Maurya, the learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent concerned, not to arrest the petitioner, with a further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 0011/2019 under sections 109 I.P.C. 66Cm 67 IT Act, PS. Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned FIR is malafidely motivated for ulterior motive as there is monetary dispute between the petitioner and the husband of the informant, allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and mischievous, a case of no offence, FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R on the ground that serious allegations have been made against the petitioner, co-accused has already been charge sheeted, prima facie cognizable offence are disclosed.
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 writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Rk