Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23161 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vinod Paswan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhaju Ram Sharma, Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri B. R. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Isrhad Husain, learned brief holder 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 02.12.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 592 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307, 504, 506, IPC and Section 13 of Public Gambling Act, 1967, Police Station Campeirganj, District Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10067 of 2018 (Parshuram Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) was filed by the co-accused before this Court, which was dismissed and another petition i.e. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 28444 of 2017 (Ashish @ Ashish Kumar Jaiswal) was filed by the co-accused before the co-ordinate Bench of this Court No. 28444 of 2017 (Ashwain @ Ashish Kumar Jaiswal) which too was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses the 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 quashing the FIR is refused.
However, the court below while considering the bail application of the petitioner shall consider the facts as argued by the counsel for the petitioner, if the petitioner moves bail application before the court below.
With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 24.8.2018/VKG