Kalim Zamai vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 595 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12621 of 2018
 
Petitioner :- Kalim Zamai
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arif Ikbal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

Heard Sri Arif Ikbal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K.Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record.

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 29.4.2018, registered as case crime No.69 of 2018, under Section 66A of I.T.Act, 2008 & 295A I.P.C., Police Station Sarai Meer, District Azamgarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with malafide intention. He further submits that so far the offence under Section 66A of the I.T. Act is concerned, the same has been declared as unconstitutional by the Apex Court in the case of Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India, reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) 265. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. No offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR and submitted that there appears to be also an offence under Section 295A I.P.C. against the petitioner for sharing the message on the social media which caused religious feeling of the people and the FIR 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.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Order Date :- 17.5.2018/NS