Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20598 of 2018 Petitioner :- Iliyas And 8 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ritesh Srivastava,Shweta Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhitab Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ritesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Sand, 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 13.7.2018 registered as case crime no. 241 of 2018, u/s 147, 148, 149, 308 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, P.S. Rohta, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are cross reports of the incident and both sides have received injuries. Petitioner's land was grabbed by the respondent no.3 and others. In the cross case lodged from the side of the petitioners against respondent no.3, respondent parties have already been granted bail by the competent court. The allegations made against the petitioners are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless, hence present FIR be quashed.
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 petitioner shall consider the fact that in the cross case lodged from the side of the petitioners against respondent no.3, respondent parties have 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 :- 31.7.2018 A.P. Pandey