Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19917
of 2019
Petitioner :- Ramesh Maurya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Arun Srivastav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Sri Amit Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Dr. Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Narayan Misra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the impugned FIR dated 7.1.2019, registered as Case Crime No. 20 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station- Baradari, District Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he does not want to press the prayer for stay and he has come up before this Court for quashing of the FIR, hence, the Court proceeds to examine as to whether the offence discloses is cognizable or not.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.3 is a political person and he has demanded Rs. 50 lacs from the petitioner. In that regard the petitioner has lodged an NCR No.384 of 2014 against respondent no.3 and the impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.3 as counter blast on the basis of false allegations. It is next argued that at the time of obtaining the two Arms Licences, there were only two cases against the petitioner in which he was acquitted. The respondent no.3 has also filed a complaint for cancellation of Licence No.1146 of 2009 and 1377 of 2014 against the petitioner but the same was rejected by the learned C.J.M. Bareilly. It was further submitted that the proceedings under Section 17(3) Arms Act were initiated against the petitioner but the same were withdrawn by the District Magistrate, Bareilly by the order dated 17.11.2016. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless and no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and submitted that there are allegations against the petitioner that while applying for the Arms Licences, he concealed his criminal history and thus, licences of Arms were obtained by him by concealing the material facts. It was alleged that there were as many as 10 criminal cases against the petitioner but he has concealed the said fact and obtained Arms Licences.
Perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. There are allegations against the petitioner that he obtained Arm Licences by concealing his long criminal history, which was a material fact for that purpose and thus, it could not be said that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Most of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertains to factual aspects of the matter, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
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.
Taking into the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR and from the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against him. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Neeraj