Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23164 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sanjay Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mayank Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Mayank, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, learned brief holder 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 08.08.2018 registered as Case Crime No.1031 of 2018, under Sections 13 of Public Gambling Act, 1867, Police Station-Kotwali, District Mathura.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on the basis of confessional statement made by the co-accused Satya Prasad Agrawal before the police. He further submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioner just to make pressure upon him for not doing parivi of arrested accused persons by the police as the petitioner is a practising Advocate in District Court, Mathura and he is doing parivi in many of accused involved in N.D.P.S. act and Public Gambling Act and many other offence, due to which the police personnel of concerned police station were having malice against the petitioner resulting the involvement of the petitioner in the instant FIR. He next argued that the mobile phone number which has been alleged to be used in the name of Sanjay Advocate is neither the petitioner nor the same is registered in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner never used the alleged mobile phone number. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. No offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR 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 :- 24.8.2018/VKG