Allahabad High Court
Jonny vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 August, 2021
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3983 of 2021
Petitioner :- Jonny
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Ker Singh,Vineet Singh Parmar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the F.I.R. dated 23.3.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 60 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 379, 328 I.P.C., P.S.- Niwari, District- Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has performed marriage with the complainant and relevant documents, including photographs are there on the record. He submits that even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and lodging of first information report is nothing but putting pressure upon the petitioner for the reason best known to the complainant.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing and stay of arrest. It is argued that a perusal of the same goes to show that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. He submits that perusal of paragraph 10 of the writ petition itself shows that the educational testimonial/documents of the complainant are in possession of the petitioner as alleged in the FIR also. It is argued that since cognizable offence is made out as there are specific allegations against the petitioner, the matter needs investigation and since the matter needs investigation, the same cannot be quashed. It is argued that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
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 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 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.
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 :- 9.8.2021
Priya/nethra
