Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mohan Ram v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 13819 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19706 (21 November 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.

Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the first information report lodged at case Crime No. 476/06,  477/06, 478/06, 479/06, 480/06 and 481/06 u/s 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B IPC and 25 Arms Act, Police Station Mohamdabad, District Mau.

Recently the Full Bench in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of Others, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4861 of 2000 decided on 5.7.2006 has reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satyapal Vs. 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 the F.I.R. discloses no cognizable offence or there is any statutory restriction on the power of the police to investigate a case as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, and that the observations and directions in Joginder Kumar's case (Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & others, (1994) 4 SCC 260 do not relate to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under Article 226 and contain only directions for the police, the breach whereof may call for departmental proceedings or action under contempt. The Full Bench has further held that it is  not permissible to utilize the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in such a manner as to  provide anticipatory bail which has been deleted in the State of U.P. and to do indirectly what cannot be done directly.

The petitioner's counsel has been unable to satisfy the Court that prima facie on the allegations in the F.I.R. No cognizable offence is disclosed, or that there was any statutory restriction on the conduct of investigation in this case.

In this view there is no force in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

However, it is directed that in case the petitioner surrenders and applies for bail within two weeks from today before the Courts below in the aforesaid case, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the courts below expeditiously in accordance with law.

dt. 21.11.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.