Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Kumar Prajapati vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 4 August, 2021
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4992 of 2021
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Prajapati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamesh Kumar Arya
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vishwanath Mishra
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Sri Kamlesh Kumar Arya, counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vishwanath Mishra, counsel for the complainant.
Petitioner, Dinesh Kumar Prajapati, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashment of FIR dated 16.4.2021 registered as Crime No. 91 of 2021, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur.
Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner and he has been implicated in the case by making general allegations. While referring to the FIR, it has been argued that FIR has been registered against as many as 26 persons and the main role has been assigned to one Amit Yadav and Jay Prakash Pandey. He submits that the petitioner has been made accused based on the application of Sections 147, 148 & 149 of IPC. However, the said sections are not attracted in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that he has no objection if investigation is completed by the police but till the investigation is done, petitioner may be protected. He submits that the application seeking anticipatory bail has also been rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.6.2021.
On the other hand, opposing the writ petition, it has been argued by the learned A.G.A. and counsel for the complainant that presence of petitioner has been duly proved by the complainant in the FIR itself and allegation against him is of pelting stones on the opposite party. He submits that medical report of the injured shows several injuries. He further submits that with the help of Section 149, the petitioner has been joined as an accused and prima facie, the said offense is made out against him. He submits that once a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, FIR cannot be quashed and once the FIR cannot be quashed, no interim protection can be granted.
Perusal of impugned FIR shows the involvement of the present petitioner in the present case along with other co-accused. From the FIR, his participation is apparent and a detailed investigation is yet to be done. The material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The submissions made by counsel for the petitioner relate to disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction of 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 the perusal of 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 computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner 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 :- 4.8.2021
RK
