Allahabad High Court
Kalloo & Another vs State Of U.P. & Others on 3 February, 2010
Bench: Imtiyaz Murtaza, Naheed Ara Moonis
Court No. - 41 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1765 of 2010 Petitioner :- Kalloo & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ken Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned A.G.A. appearing for the State authorities.
By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the relief of a writ of certiorari quashing the F.I.R. in case crime no.16 of 2010 under section 3/8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act 1955 and section 11 of the Prevention of Animal Cruelty act 1960 P.S.Tajganj District Agra.
In connection with the arguments advanced across the bar, attention is drawn to the Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) in which this Court reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) 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 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others (AIR 1992 SC 604) attended with further elaboration that observations and directions contained in Joginder Kumar's case (Joginder Kumar 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 Article 226 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. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution 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 petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 3.2.2010 MH