Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14318 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ramesh Gond Alias Ramesh Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anup Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K. Verma, 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 14.4.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 165 of 2018 under sections 272 I.P.C. and 60, 64, 72 U.P. Excise Duty/Excise Act, police station Tarya Sujan, District Kushi Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no concern with the wine which was recovered from the possession of co- accused Manoj Yadav and Sonu Chaudhary. The petitioner is a labour. He has been falsely implicated in the present case, hence the present F.I.R. against him 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 :- 30.5.2018 Shiraz