Santosh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 773 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13111 of 2018
 
Petitioner :- Santosh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

Heard Sri V.K.Tripathi, 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.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 25.11.2017, registered as case crime No.553 of 2017, under Section 60//63 Excise Act and under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Barsana, District Meerut.

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 the petitioner was busy in election of Chairman and supported the deserving candidate, on account of which in collusion with police and for revival of the candidate of opp. party, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged recovery and nothing has been recovered from the premises of the petitioner. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed.

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of 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 petitioners.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

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

Order Date :- 22.5.2018/NS