Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Shailendra And Others vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 August, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23937 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shailendra And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Y.S. Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Y.S. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.K. Verma, 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 6.10.2017, registered as case crime no.270 of 2017, u/s 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 307, 427, 379 IPC, and 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51 of Vanya Jeev (Sanrakshan) Act, 1972 and u/s 26 (Ch) of Indian Forest Act, 1972, P.S. Pinahat, district Agra.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that co-accused of the present case have already been granted bail by the competent court. The allegations made against the petitioners 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 petitioners. The prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.
However, the court below while considering the bail application of the petitioner shall consider the fact that co-accused of the present case have already been granted bail by the competent court, if the petitioners move bail application before the court below.
With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 30.8.2018 Gaurav
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Shailendra And Others vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
30 August, 2018
Judges
  • Ramesh Sinha
Advocates
  • Y S Saxena