Allahabad High Court
Naseema And Another vs State Of U.P. And 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. - 4206 of 2021
Petitioner :- Naseema And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shamsuddin Ahmad
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Matter taken up through video conferencing.
Heard Sri Shamsuddin Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri H.M.B. Sinha, counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-
"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the 06.02.2021, registered as case crime No. 91 of 2021 under Section 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC., police station Deoband, District Saharanpur (Annexure 1 to the writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to harass/arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. dated 02.06.2021, registered as case crime No. 91 of 2021 under Section 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC., police station Deoband, District Saharanpur.
(iii) Issue such other and further writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case protecting the interest of the petitioner.
(iv) Award cost of the writ petition against the contesting respondents."
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that no case whatsoever is made out against the petitioners. It is further argued that dispute if any is a civil dispute and is a dispute of measurement of land only. It is argued that a sale-deed was executed by the petitioner no.1 in favour of father of respondent no.4 for some land. The petitioner no.1 had then executed a sale-deed in favour of petitioner no.2. Subsequently, the petitioner no.2 filed a civil suit against petitioner no.1 and the first informant and his brother which is pending before the concerned court. It is argued that the present writ petition has been filed considering the fact that pandemic COVID-19 is in the air and as such, protection of the petitioners is very necessary as if they apply for anticipatory bail or are arrested , they may have to come in contact with various persons due to which there is a fear that they may catch viral infection. It is argued that especially, looking to the fact of the prevailing situation of pandemic, the arrest of the petitioners be stayed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in all fairness stated that the matter although requires investigation but since the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, their arrest may be stayed, in spite of the fact that the matter requires investigation and quashing of the impugned first information report may not be possible. It is argued that this Court should exercise its jurisdiction and stay the arrest of the petitioners during the pendency of investigation.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR and stay of arrest.
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 F.I.R, 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 :- 18.6.2021
AS Rathore / RK
