Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10443 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Achal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prabhash Pandey, learned Brief Holder 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 12.02.2017 registered as Case Crime No.400 of 2017, under Sections 386, 307 IPC, Police Station- Handia, District Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had some enmity with the Circle Officer, Handia because he has filed a complaint against him before SC/ST Commission on 22.1.2017 in which notice was issued against him and he did not appear before SC/ST Commission. The present FIR was lodged on 12.02.2017 deliberately implicating his name along with two co- accused persons. The petitioner has no relation with the co-accused person nor the respondent no.4 and only just to compromise the matter, the Circle Officer has deliberately implicated the petitioner in the present matter. The petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioners, hence, the same be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence. He submits that it is true that the respondent no. 4 did not receive any injury of the bomb but two persons standing near to him has sustained injury of bomb on his both legs.
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 :- 24.4.2018 AU