HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 44 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18781 of 2019 Petitioner :- [ENTITY] And Another Respondent :- [ENTITY] And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- [ENTITY],[ENTITY] Counsel for Respondent :- [ENTITY] Hon'ble [ENTITY],J.
Hon'ble [ENTITY],J.
Heard Sri [ENTITY], Advocate, holding brief of Sri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri [ENTITY], learned A.G.A. 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 25.06.2019, registered as [CASE NUMBER], under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] [ACT], police station Karchhana, District Prayagraj.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case; that the deceased died on account of accidental death; that no ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased, as it appears from the postmortem report, hence the FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence.
The Full Bench of this court in [PRECEDENT] reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in [PRECEDENT] 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 as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions including [PRECEDENT] attended with further elaboration that observations and directions contained in [ENTITY]'s case ([ENTITY] v. State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 contradict extension to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under [SECTION] and the same are intended to be observed in compliance by the Police, the breach whereof, it has been further elaborated, may entail action by way of departmental proceeding or action under the contempt of Court Act. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under [SECTION] of the [ACT] as an alternative to anticipatory bail which is not invocable in the State of U.P. attended with further observation that what is not permissible to do directly cannot be done indirectly.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has not brought forth anything cogent or convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction operating on the police to investigate the case.
Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and/therefore no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
([ENTITY], J.) ([ENTITY], J.) Order Date :- 9.7.2019 [ENTITY]