Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21964 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shraddha Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Das Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sameer Shankar Srivastava, learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent concerned, not to arrest the petitioner, with a further prayer for quashing the orders dated 07.06.2019 and 02.04.2019 as well as impugned FIR dated 27.05.2019 in Case Crime No.268/2017, under Section 2/3 of the Gangster Act, P.S. Ujhani, District-Budaun.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, she is not named in the F.I.R. nor any role has assigned to her, on account of legal consultation, name of the petitioner surfaced in further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that respondent no. 3 Senior Superintendent of Police maliciously submitted supplementary gang chart against petitioner approved by respondent no. 2/ District Magistrate, Badaun. It is further submitted that petitioner is neither a gang leader nor a member of gang, a household lady. It is further submitted that this Court has granted interim protection to co- accused Girish Mishra @ Neeraj vide order dated 20.08.2018 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 27277 of 2018. The allegations levelled against her are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed.
Learned A.G.A, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, 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 petitioner.
The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.9.2019 AKT