Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Goswami vs State Of U.P. And 2 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. - 3152 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mukesh Goswami
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Pankaj Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. 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 7.2.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 181 of 2021, for the offence under Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the petitioner was appointed as an employee of M/s Idea Builders Pvt. Ltd. by its Director on 15.4.2013 and he submitted his resignation on 10.12.2018 which was duly accepted vide letter dated 12.12.2018 of the company. It is argued that the petitioner, as per the first information report, has been shown to be involved in five other criminal cases wherein he has no concern whatsoever. It is further argued that in the said five cases although the investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against the petitioner also but neither the trial court has taken cognizance in the matters nor the petitioner has received any summons from the court. It is argued that the cases as shown in which the petitioner is said to be involved are false cases wherein he has been falsely implicated. It is argued that lodging of the present F.I.R. under the provisions of Gangsters Act is without applicant of mind and mere filing of charge sheet will not amount to be a case pending against the petitioner unless a court takes congnizance, issues summons against the accused.
It is argued that the petitioner has not received any money from the buyers which has been directly transferred in the account of company and as such, no offence is made out in the said five cases which have been registered by the buyers. The petitioner was performing his duty as an employee of the company and as such, he cannot be held responsible for the acts performed on behalf of the company.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and stay of arrest. It is argued that the complicity of the petitioner cannot be doubted in the said matter. It is further argued that the petitioner as per the F.I.R., has been shown to be involved in five cases along with two other co-accused. It is argued that from perusal of the F.I.R. a cognizable offence is made out and as such, 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 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
