Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26486 of 2018
Petitioner :- Kuldeep
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Jatan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri R.J.Yadav, 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 11.9.2018 registered as case crime No.1001 of 2018, under Section 60/72 Excise Act and Section 420 I.P.C., P.S. New Agra, District Agra.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a student and has been falsely implicated in the present case with malafide intention. He further submitted that the petitioner and co-accused Anil Kumar belong to the same locality where father of petitioner is running a general merchant shop and some days prior to the alleged incident the co-accused Anil Kumar purchased some goods amounting to Rs.3000/- from the said shop but he did not pay any money for the same and when the petitioner along with his father started demanding the money, some hot altercation took place between them, on account of that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case just for the purpose of harassment. He next argued that the petitioner was neither present at the place of the alleged incident nor any wine has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. No offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence and submitted that huge recovery of illegal liquor has been made from possession of the co-accused.
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, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 NS