High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Santosh Singh And Others v. State Of U.P. And Another - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15027 of 2007  RD-AH 15947 (24 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Hon. Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.
Hon. K.N.Ojha, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
We have been taken through the allegations contained in the F.I.R. and also the materials on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. registered at case crime no. 420 of 2007 under sections 323, 504, 341, 395, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1) X SC/ST Act P.S. Colonelganj District Allahabad.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated due to political rivalry and their implication in the false case has been designed to prevent them from voting against the no-confidence motion.
The Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) 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.
In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out and petition is liable to be dismissed.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the arrest of the petitioners may be stayed for limited period so as to enable them to vote in the No-confidence motion. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioners, namely, Santosh Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh, Harish Chand and Mohd. Israil alias Pappu shall not be arrested for two days of course subject to the condition that they would surrender before the court concerned immediately after expiry of two days.
Learned A.G.A. shall intimate the Police authorities to refrain from arresting the petitioners pursuant to F.I.R as aforesaid.
The petition shall stand disposed of accordingly.
W.P. 15027 of 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.