- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
(2.) The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. registered at case crime no.13090758 of 2011 under sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. P.S. Sector 58 Noida District Gautam Budh Nagar.
(3.) 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 CrLJ 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, 1992 AIR(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 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 indirectly.;