Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11454 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ramesh @ Ramesh Chandra Verma Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhakar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Sudhakar Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA 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 17.4.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 232 of 2019, under sections 354, 452 IPC & 7/8 POCSO Act P.S. Kant, District Shahjahanpur.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is some property dispute between informant's husband and the petitioner and with an intent to harass and pressurize the petitioner, impugned F.I.R. has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations, the same be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. submitted that on the above submission, F.I.R. cannot be quashed as cognizable offence is made out.
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.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Ram Murti