Allahabad High Court
Durga Charan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 21 June, 2021
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3056 of 2021
Petitioner :- Durga Charan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, 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 28.10.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 0387 of 2020, for the offence under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Sasni Kotwali, District Pilibhit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that implication of the petitioner in the present case is on the basis of a single case which is bad in the eyes of law. It is argued that in the said case the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail by the court below vide order dated 30.9.2019. It is argued that the dispute in the case on the basis of which the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged, is of a civil nature. It is argued that lodging of present F.I.R. is as a revenge by the police and local M.L.A. of ruling party who instigated the first informant of solitary case on the basis of which the impugned F.I.R. has been registered.
It is further argued that co-accused Shailendra Sharma and 2 others challenged the impugned F.I.R. before this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12900 of 2020 in which a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.11.2020 though refused to quash the F.I.R. but stayed the arrest of the petitioners therein till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., copy of the said order is annexure no. 13 of the writ petition. It is prayed that as such the petitioner also deserves an equal treatment and his arrest may also be stayed looking to the fact that the arrest of three co-accused persons has been stayed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing and stay of arrest. It is argued 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 further argued that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in said writ petition of three co-accused persons has held that it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out and had refused the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. It is argued that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. in so far as the petitioner is related is also similar to that of said three co-accused persons who had preferred the writ petition in which quashing of the F.I.R. was refused and, hence, once quashing of the F.I.R. has been refused, interim order for stay of arrest cannot be granted.
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, this Court has in the case of Kishan Pal @ K.P. Vs. State of U.P. : 2006 (54) ACC 1015 has also in detail dealt with regarding the jurisdiction of this Court in matters under the Gangster Act pending investigation.
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 :- 21.6.2021
Naresh/Netra.
