Allahabad High Court
Shahil And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 August, 2021
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5539 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shahil And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- B.N.Singh,Manish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Sri B.N.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR dated 08.02.2021 in respect of Crime No. 22 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 376, 307, 147, 342, 323, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Nawabganj, District Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner nos. 2 to 6 have already obtained bail from the competent court, however, petitioner no. 1 has not filed any such application. He submits that complainant has already performed marriage with third person and when she could not adjust with him, after returning to her home, she pressurized the petitioners and the present FIR has been lodged. It has been further argued that offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. has already been diluted. Learned counsel submits that the allegations of the complainant of false promise and then not marrying is not correct because she is already a married lady.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. and submits that whatever arguments have been advanced by the petitioners, may be a good defence but taking the FIR as it is, the same cannot be quashed. It is argued that from a perusal of the F.I.R. cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. It is argued that defence is being pleaded which cannot be looked into at this stage under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It is argued that since a cognizable offence is made out, the matter deserves to be investigated.
Perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioners. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners relate to disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction of under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P. and others : (2006) 56 ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2000 Cr.L.J. 569 after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others : 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.
Further the Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani : (2017) 2 SCC 779 has disapproved an order restraining the Investigating Agencies arresting the accused where prayer of quashing the First Information Report has been refused.
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 encyclopedia 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.
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 petitioners.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
However, dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioners for approaching the concern forum for applying anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner (s) along with 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.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 11.8.2021
SK
