Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Pervez Ahmad vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|24 September, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26416 of 2018
Petitioner :- Pervez Ahmad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shahroze Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Shahroze Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pawan Shukla, 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 10.9.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 138 of 2018 under sections 354 I.P.C. and 67 I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008, police station Bhawaniganj, District Siddharth Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the daughter of respondent no. 3 was having some relation with the petitioner on account of which respondent no. 3 lodged the present F.I.R. after four months of the incident. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case though no offence as has been mentioned in the F.I.R. is made out against him, hence the present F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses 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 writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 24.9.2018 Shiraz
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Pervez Ahmad vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
24 September, 2018
Judges
  • Ramesh Sinha
Advocates
  • Shahroze Khan