Allahabad High Court
Prathvipal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6505 of 2021
Petitioner :- Prathvipal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Uttar Kumar Goswami
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Uttar Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of FIR dated 11.05.2021 lodged by respondent No.4, Supply Inspector against the petitioner in respect of Crime No. 0216 of 2021 for the offence under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police Station-Bahjoi, District Sambhal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed breach of any terms and conditions of the licence, but rival persons, having inimical terms with the petitioner, have made false complaint. He submits that the petitioner is running the fair price shop since long time without there being any fault on his part and that fair price shop is the only source of livelihood of his entire family members. He further submits that even if the FIR cannot be quashed, protection can be granted to the petitioner for a limited period, so that he may not be arrested.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing and stay of arrest. It is argued that a perusal of the FIR goes to show that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. He submits that ration card holders were not getting food grains properly and whenever they demand the same, the petitioner used to abuse them. He further submits that inspection of petitioner's shop was made on 10.05.2021, however, no stock of Wheat and Rice was found in the Sales Stock Register, though the petitioner should have 39.52 quintals of wheat and 24.33 quintals of rice on that day when supply and distribution was taken into account. It is argued that since cognizable offence is made out, there is specific allegation against the petitioner, the matter needs investigation and since the matter needs investigation, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed. It is argued that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
A 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 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.
From a 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.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
The party shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner (s) alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number 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 :- 17.8.2021
nethra
