Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3976 (ALL)

Ranveer Singh Dhakre v. State of U. P.

2016-12-09

RAMESH SINHA, REKHA DIXIT

body2016
JUDGMENT Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court, is taken on record. Heard Sri B.B.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Harish Shukla holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.3, Sri A.K.Sand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the impugned NCR No.147 of 2016, dated 2.9. 2016 converted into FIR vide Case Crime No.713 of 2016, under Sections 308, 325, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sadabad, District Hathras. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that daughter of petitioner no.1 is married to the son of respondent no.3 and she initiated some matrimonial litigation for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. etc. against her husband and family members in the year 2015 and the daughter of petitioner no.1 also received some injuries at the hands of respondent in the case case, hence, the present case has been lodged against the petitioner no.1 and his family members by respondent no.3. He further submits that initially an NCR was lodged for the offence under Section 323 , 504 I.P.C. but subsequently the case was converted under Sections 308, 325 I.P.C. on the basis of injury report. He further argued that petitioner no.4 was admitted in the hospital from 1.9.2016 to 5.9.2016 while the incident has taken place on 2.9.2016. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR and has pointed out that as per the instructions received from his client, probably the charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. 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. 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.