Allahabad High Court
Gyan Bahadur Yadav @ Pappu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 17 July, 2017
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Rekha Dikshit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 15507 of 2017
Petitioner :- Gyan Bahadur Yadav @ Pappu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Mishra,Dev Mani Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.
Sri Dinesh Kumar Ojha, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama and short counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.5 today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dinesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent no.5, R.K.Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 8.9.2016 registered as Case Crime No.766 of 2016, under Section 307 I.P.C. which was later on converted under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali City, District Pratapgarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was shot dead by some unknown persons and FIR was lodged against unknown persons. He further submits that the incident had taken place on 8.9.2016 and the FIR was lodged on the same day. He argued that when the incident took place, petitioner himself took the deceased to Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Allahabad along with his brother and admitted the deceased in the hospital and he was continuously present there from 8.9.2016 to 11.9.2016 as the petitioner and deceased was having business together. He further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only on account of suspicion. He further argued that respondent no.5 who is informant of the case has filed a Writ Petition Misc. Bench No.11034 of 2017 on 17.5.2017 before this Court in which this Court has passed an order on 19.5.2017 directing the Superintendent of Police to file an affidavit showing the steps taken in the investigation of the present case and thereafter the present case has been concocted against the petitioner. From perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the FIR be quashed.
Learned counsel for respondent no.5 and learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR and submitted that there are two eye witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Ram Milan and Lallu who in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have assigned specific role of firing to the petitioner.
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 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.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought forth anything cogent or convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there 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.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 17.7.2017/NS
