Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25337 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sanjay Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri S.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gambhir Singh, learned AGA 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 13.12.2016, registered as case crime no.1545 of 2016, u/s 60, 62 U.P. Excise Act and 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, district Mainpuri.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has retired from the Merchant Navy and given his house to co-accused who was committing illegal act in the said house and the consignment in question was recovered, the petitioner has no knowledge about the same. The allegations made against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless, hence present FIR be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses the 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 petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 12.9.2018 Gaurav