Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24372 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shintu Yadav @ Sailendra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sangam Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR dated 10.11.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 835 of 2019 under section 307 I.P.C. P.S. Auraiya District Auraiya.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and the same has been lodged against unknown person and there is no recovery on the pointing out of the petitioner. Subsequently, the name of the petitioner has come forward in the statement of other co- accused persons. Hence the FIR deserves to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56)ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569, after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. 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 FIR 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 FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 o.k.