Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20075 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sushil Pal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 05.06.2018 registered as Case Crime No.263 of 2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 272, 273, 120B I.P.C. & 60/63 U.P.Excise Act, Police Station Katra, District Shahjahanpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the co- accused persons have challenged the impugned F.I.R. before this Court by filing two different petitions, i.e, Crl. Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 15473 of 2018 and 16678 of 2018. He submits that though in the writ petition filed by co-accused Rakesh Gupta @ Saktu Lala, i.e., Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 15473 of 2018 this Court stayed his arrest vide order dated 18.6.2018 but while deciding Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 16678 of 2018 filed by four other co-accused persons, this Court vide order dated 22.6.2018 has rejected the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and directed them to surrender before the Court below and obtain bail and in pursuance of the said order, they have got themselves bailed out.
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 petitioners. The prayer for the same is hereby refused.
However, if the petitioner move bail application before the court below, the court below while considering his bail application shall take into account the aforesaid fact as has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petition stands disposed of.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Madhurima