2017 (8) TMI 1641

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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. Petition dismissed. - CRIMINAL .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... contended that perusal of the FIR would disclose prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. There is no ground for interference with the impugned FIR. 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 the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction 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 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 indi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X