Allahabad High Court
Jyoti vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 June, 2021
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3626 of 2021
Petitioner :- Jyoti
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Shukla, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondents who have appeared through video conferencing, and perused the material on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR dated 7.7.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 0174 of 2020, for the offence under Sections 3 Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, Police Station- Sasni Kotwali, District Hathras.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the present first information report has been lodged with malafide intentions and no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner. It is argued that although there is an allegation in the F.I.R. that the petitioner absented from duty as being a staff Nurse during the rise of Covid-19 pandemic but her absence was because of the reason that she was in the stage of pregnancy and was exempted as per SOP dated 4.6.2020 of the Government of India wherein pregnant women were advised to stay at home. It is argued that the petitioner was investigated by radiologist on 07.8.2020 and was found to be having a pregnancy of eight weeks and as such, she did not move out as per the S.O.P. of Government. It is further argued that the petitioner had given an application to the Chief Medical Officer, Hathras on 18.8.2020, copy of which has been annexed as annexure no. 6 to the writ petition and, had explained her absence and requested for maternity leave.
It is argued that the petitioner was a contractual labourer and her services have already been terminated and the F.I.R. has been lodged on 7.7.2020 in a hurried manner without even giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and asked about her absence. It is argued that rejection of her application by the Chief Medical Officer on 08.9.2020 is with an ulterior motive. The letter has been placed before the Court, which is annexure no. 8 to the writ petition. It is argued that no offence whatsoever has been made out against the petitioner and, hence, the present F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner had absented from duty of essential service during rise of Covid-19 pandemic and on her own saying in her application dated 18.8.2020 which is annexure no. 6 to the writ petition, she continued to remain absent since a long time. 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 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 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 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 (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 :- 16.6.2021
Naresh
