Allahabad High Court
Yashwant Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 18 June, 2021
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4285 of 2021
Petitioner :- Yashwant Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aparajit Yadav,Shyam Lal Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Matter taken up through video conferencing.
Heard Sri Shyam Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of F.I.R dated 29.05.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 0117 of 2021, for the offence under Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Bahariya, District Prayagraj with a further prayer to stay the arrest of the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that plot No. 459 Mi of 3 bigha 18 Biswa is recorded as Usar in Khata of C.H. 45 in khatauni 1423 fasli to 1428 fasli out of which 0.160 hectare has been allotted for agricultural land in favour of the petitioner and his wife Smt. Anita Devi vide approval dated 20.10.2002 Up-Zila Upadhikari, Phoolpur on a resolution of Land Management Committee, Tehsil- Phoolpur, District Prayagraj. It is argued that after execution of lease, the same was verified by Revenue Inspector on 13.11.2002 and the name of the petitioner and his wife have been mutated in the revenue records and as such, they are in continuous possession over the land in dispute. According to lease, allottees have been put in possession by the lekhpal on 14.08.2007. The village Pradhan, Saripatti, Pargana- Sikandara has issued a letter on 10.02.2016 that the petitioner and his wife are allottees of the said area and are in continuous possession over the land in dispute and no other persons has any concern with the said land. It is argued that even there is a dispute going on, the petitioner had filed a Revision before the Commissioner Allahabad in which the order dated 30.08.2008 passed by the trial court has been set-aside vide order dated 12.08.2016. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before this Court which was allowed and the order of the Revisional Court has been set-aside vide order dated 05.04.2016. The matter is still subjudice before the trial court in respect to the allotted land and the petitioner is in possession over it. It is argued that as such, the present dispute is a dispute of civil nature and no offence whatsoever is made out.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing and argued that the arguments as raised on behalf of the petitioner are disputed questions of fact and cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further argued that as per the settled principles of law, a dispute can have both civil and criminal nature and can proceed in the criminal forum also. It is argued that the matter is such which requires investigation and as such, the present first information report cannot be quashed.
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 :- 18.6.2021
AS Rathore/ RKK
