Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Goyal And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 April, 2021
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16505 of 2019
Petitioner :- Pankaj Goyal And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amit Sinha, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners before this Court for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 26.04.2019 in Case Crime No.0210 of 2019, under Sections 452, 376-D, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amended 2015), Police Station Gajraula, District Jyotibaphullyaingar with a further prayer not to arrest and harass the petitioners during the pendency of the investigation.
Vide order dated 13.06.2019 notice was issued to respondent no.4 for which there was no report of service and as such vide order dated 12.01.2021, notice was again issued through the C.J.M concerned and as per the office report dated 23.2.2021, the report of service has not been received. Service of notice is thus deemed sufficient.
Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA have no objection for the matter to be heard and decided finally.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the first information report has been lodged after a delay of four years which remains unexplained. It is further argued that the impugned first information report has been registered on the basis of an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which is dated 21.02.2019 which states that the incident in question took place on 20.1.2015. It is further argued that absolutely false and baseless allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. It is further argued that no medical examination report of the victim is available on record which would go to show that rape was committed on her. It is further argued that the husband of the opposite party no.4 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 4.6.2018 regarding his due payment which was filed only for harassing and blackmailing the petitioners. It is further argued that several dates have been fixed in the matter for hearing but neither he nor his counsel appeared before the court below. It is further argued that the husband of respondent no.4 was working with the petitioners till 18.02.2018 and the entire payment was paid and the dues were settled. It is further argued that the present first information report has been lodged with malafide intention which is in order to falsely implicated and harass the petitioners, hence the impugned first information report deserves to be quashed.
Per contra learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and argued that from the perusal of the first information report, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. It is further argued that there are specific allegations of gang rape being committed upon the respondent no.4 by the accused persons and as such the investigation needs to be done and it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners, therefore, the present writ petition be dismissed.
The Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021) in its judgment dated 13th April, 2021 has in detail held that the Courts should not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the First Information Report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule. Ordinarily, the Courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. The First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details regarding the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the Court should not go into merits of the allegations made in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the dictum of the Apex Court as stated above, a cognizable offence is made out. The present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Samit Gopal, J.) (Pritinker Diwaker, J.)
Order Date :- 16.4.2021
Gaurav
