Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22902 of 2018
Petitioner :- Shyam Bihari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Pratap Singh,Amit Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri S.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K.Verma, learned A.G.A. appearing 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 8.7.2018, registered as case crime No.85 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Dharmsinghva, District Sant Kabir Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with malafide intention due to village party bandi. He further submitted that the co-accused, namely, Poonam Mishra has challenged the impugned FIR by means of filing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.21130 of 2018 in which interim protection has been granted to her, copy of which has been produced and same is taken on record. 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.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence and submitted that the other co-accused persons have also challenged the impugned FIR before this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.20055 of 2018 and Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.20005 of 2018, which have been dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 26.7.2018, copies of which have been produced and the same are taken on record and co-accused, namely, Poonam Mishra has been interim protection in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.21130 of 2018 by this court being lady.
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 :- 23.8.2018 NS