Hari Ballabh Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 5343 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21703 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Hari Ballabh Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Mehra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Suresh C. Dwivedi
 

 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

Heard Sri Atul Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.C.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the  caveator, Sri I.P. Singh, 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 11.8.2006 registered as Case Crime No.97 of 2006, under Sections 218, 419, 420, 120B I.P.C. and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kotwali, District Agra.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the is a Peon and he has no role to pay in the crime in question. He further submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out out against the petitioners, hence, the same be quashed.

Learned counsel for the caveator and learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses cognizable offence. He further submits that impugned FIR is of the year 2006 and the petitioner has been avoiding his arrest and after a lapse of 11 years he has challenged the impugned FIR. They further pointed out that the petition filed by the co-accused who are Junior Engineers have already been dismissed by this Court.

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) 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.

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)      (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Order Date :- 11.10.2017

NS