Allahabad High Court
Abdul Kareem Khan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 24 May, 2018
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13447 of 2018
Petitioner :- Abdul Kareem Khan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Prabhakar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K.Verma, 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 9.5.2018, registered as case crime No.74 of 2018, under Sections 376, 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Shohratgarh, District Siddharthnagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with malafide intention. He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Shamshuddin with whom the victim was having affair, is already confined in jail. He next argued that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has come into light for the first time in 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim at the instance of Ex-Village Pradhan.The allegation levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. No offence is made out against the petitioner, hence,FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses cognizable offence.
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.
After passing of the aforesaid order Sri Ravindra Prakash Srivastva, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 states that he has filed caveat along with his Vakalatnama in the Registry of this Court today, on which the same was summoned and sent by the office which is taken on record.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 24.5.2018/NS
