Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11115 of 2019
Petitioner :- Natthu @ Nathu Ram And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Pandey,Birendra Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Prasun Tomar, holding brief of Shri Birendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 4.4.2019 registered as Case Crime No.206 of 2019 under sections 406, 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C P.S. Rohania District Varanasi.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR is malafidely motivated, petitioner is tenure holder of Arazi No.707 (Area 0.3800 hectare) alongwith co-shares, a civil suit is pending between the petitioners and respondent no.4, no offence is made out, FIR be quashed.
Learned A.G.A, opposed the contention on above ground that cognizable offence are disclosed, FIR cannot be quashed, writ petition is liable to be quashed.
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 writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 29.4.2019/Rk