Allahabad High Court
Amit Chauhan & Another vs State Of U.P. & Others on 17 November, 2011
Bench: Imtiyaz Murtaza, Jayashree Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21769 of 2011
Petitioner :- Amit Chauhan & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Sunil Vashisth
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the allegations made in the impugned FIR do not disclose any offence against the petitioners.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-Respondents opposed the prayer.
Having considered the submission made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that since the allegations made in the impugned FIR, prima facie, disclose commission of cognizable offence, therefore, there appears to be no reason to quash the same especially, when the investigation is still going on. The contention made on behalf of the petitioner is by way of defence and, therefore, the same cannot be gone into at this stage for the purpose of quashing the FIR.
In the case of M.L. Bhatt Vs. M.K. Pandita & Others, JT 2002 (3) SC 89, the Apex Court has held that the defence version of the named accused, cannot be looked into and decided at this stage. However, keeping in view the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others, 1994 (4) SCC 260, wherein their Lordships have held that no arrest should be made unless the investigating agency finds credible evidence collected during the investigation showing the involvement of the accused person or the investigation cannot be completed without effecting the arrest, in that eventuality only the arrest is to be undertaken. Therefore normally, merely on the allegation without there being any evidence showing involvement of the accused, the recourse of arrest is not to be undertaken.
We are, therefore, of the view that in the facts and circumstances and also having regard to the view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar (supra), it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at this stage without expressing any opinion on merits in respect of the allegations made, with the direction that the investigation of the Case Crime No. 499 of 2011, U/ss 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut shall continue and be concluded expeditiously. However, the petitioners shall not be arrested unless some credible evidence during the investigation is collected showing his involvement, provided he cooperates with the investigation and appears before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon.
It goes without saying that in the event, the petitioners do not cooperate with the investigation, the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and it would be open to the Investigating Officer to take steps in accordance with law.
With the above order, the writ petition stands disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 17.11.2011
Shahnaz
