Sita Ram Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 838 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13277 of 2018
 
Petitioner :- Sita Ram Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar holding brief of Sri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.P.Singh, 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 12.4.2018, registered as case crime No.199 of 2018, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to oblique motive and malafide intention. He further submits that the petitioner is neither a member of any gang nor he runs any gang involved in anti social activities. 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.

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR and submitted that the petition of co-accused, namely, Surendra Kumar Gupta being Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.11535 of 2018 has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 7.5.2018.

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 :- 23.5.2018/NS