Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1976 of 2019 Petitioner :- Lallan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGA 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 23.12.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 371 of 2018, under sections 352, 504, 506, 427 IPC & Section 2/3 Public Property Damage Prevention Act P.S. Machhalishahar District Jaunpur.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR is malafidely motivated on account of local village politics, coupled with the fact that he himself has submitted application dated 28.12.2018 and 1.1.2019 after lodging of the F.I.R. before S.D.M. instead of taking any action on the same, an FIR has been lodged for ulterior motives.
Learned A.G.A, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, which discloses cognizable offence that the petitioner has demolished a boundary wall of Panchayat Bhawan.
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. Order Date :- 29.1.2019 Harshita