Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23405 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Prabhav Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ravindra Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravindra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondent, Sri Deepak Mishra, 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 25.10.2016 registered as Case Crime No.986 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 323, 406 IPC, Police Station-Naini, District Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 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 petitioner, hence, the same be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the private respondent opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence.Learned counsel for the private respondent has pointed out that the private respondent Kamla Shanker Mishra has filed a Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 8770 of 2018 (Kamla Shanker Mishra vs. State of U.P. and 6 others) for expediting the investigation. This court has passed an order for concluding the investigation within two months. He further states that charge-sheet has been submitted in the present case and he has produced the photocopy of the same which is taken on record.
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.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 27.8.2018/AU