Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11093 of 2019 Petitioner :- Tanveer Ahmad and another Respondent :- State of U.P. and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Waseem Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard Mohammad Waseem, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.S. Rajbhar learned AGA 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 26.3.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 114 of 2019, under sections 354, 323, and 504 IPC P.S. Hafijganj, District Bareilly.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant had borrowed money from petitioner no.1 and on being demanded the same, he became adamant to mar-peet regarding which petitioner no.1 lodged a Complaint Case No. 1452 of 2017 against the complainant, in retaliation thereof, the complainant has cooked up this false case and falsely implicated the petitioners, no such incident as alleged in the F.I.R. has taken place, hence, the same may 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, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Ram Murti