Allahabad High Court
Satish Chand Bhagle vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 18 July, 2017
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Rekha Dikshit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 15732 of 2017
Petitioner :- Satish Chand Bhagle
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunwar Mukul Rakesh,Kunwar Shushant Prakash
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.
Heard Sri K.M.Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Smriti Sahai, 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 23.3.2017 registered as Case Crime No.187 of 2017, under Sections 328, 376, 384, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Sarojni Nagar, District Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. he further submits that petitioner has given Rs.3 lacs to the husband of the prosecutrix by RTGS and the present FIR has been lodged after a long gap of the alleged incident. No offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, FIR be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR and submitted that the allegation levelled in the FIR shows that the prosecutrix who is a married woman was being exploited by the petitioner for sexual purposes.
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 :- 18.7.2017/NS
