Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 37363 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabha Kumari,Surendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the 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 22.11.2018 registered as Case Crime No.849 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 323, 506 and 354 IPC P.S. Jhunsi, District Allahabad.
The case alleged in the FIR is that the petitioner-accused was a former tenant of the informant, who on various dates obtained money from her to the tune of Rs. 6,63,000/- on one pretext or the other out of which only Rs. 50,000/- was returned. Further allegation is that amount demanded was not only refused but on 1.10.2018, the petitioner along with 3 other persons threatened the lady/informant with dire consequences.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that on 01.10.2018, petitioner being a railway employee was on duty, FIR is malafidely motivated, liable to be quashed.
Pet contra the learned, AGA submitted that the contention raised could not be a basis for quashing the FIR. He further submitted that here is no denial in the petition relating to payments made by the informant.
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.
Office is directed to return the Annexure Nos. 2 and 3 (alleged to be the original record) to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining the xerox of the same.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018/Neeraj