Allahabad High Court
Kismat Ali vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secretary ... on 25 January, 2021
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 2107 of 2021
Petitioner :- Kismat Ali
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secretary Home & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the First Information Report and the material on record.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 0146 of 2020 under sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Khairighat, District Bahraich with a further prayer of commanding the respondent nos. 1 to 3 not to proceed any further in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is the husband of the deceased. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 roping in the entire family of her husband-petitioner no. 1 containing absolutely false, concocted, vague and sweeping allegations against them that they were demanding dowry from her and on account of non fulfilment of the alleged demands of dowry, she was being tortured and maltreated by them in her matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not present at the date and time of the incident, for which, he relies on the certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, village Ulana Khurd, Block Madkanda, District Panipat, State Haryana (Annexure 4 to the writ petition). It is next submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the F.I.R., no credible evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the petitioner?s complicity in the commission of the alleged offence, hence, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and argues that deceased died within 7 years of marriage in her matrimonial home and as per the post mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante mortem injury (hanging). He further submits that from the perusal of the First Information Report, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and, therefore, the present writ petition be dismissed.
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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the judgments cited above, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Further, 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.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Rajeev Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 25.1.2021
VKS
