Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11101
of 2019
Petitioner :- Namonarayan Chaudhari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Manvendra Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGA and perused the impugned F.I.R, as well as material brought on record.
This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents concerned, not to arrest the petitioner, with a further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 21.12.2017 lodged in case crime no.38 of 2019, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. PS. Khejuri, District Ballia.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR is malafidely motivated lodged after ten years when the certificate dated 22.10.2009 had already been cancelled, FIR be quashed.
Learned A.G.A opposed the submission on the ground that the informant Gram Panchayat Adhikari was given false information as to the death of mother of petitioner, irrespective of the fact whether any benefit of the said certificate was taken or not, same discloses a 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 petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019/Rk