Allahabad High Court
Mumtaz Ahmad And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Ors on 22 June, 2021
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4114 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mumtaz Ahmad And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh,Mohd Atif
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Matter taken up through video conferencing.
Heard SriNipun Singh and Sri Mohd Atif, learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri Ankit Prakash, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners namely Mumtaz Ahmad and Rabiya Khatoon seeking quashment of F.I.R dated 20.03.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 0086 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia with a further prayer to stay the arrest of the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the petitioner no.1 is father-in-law and the petitioner no.2 is mother-in-law of the daughter of respondent no.3, who is the deceased in the present matter. It is argued that the petitioners are well respected law abiding citizens with no criminal antecedents. The marriage of Ashhad with the daughter of respondent no.3 was solemnized on 28.12.2019 as per Muslim Personal Law without any dowry and the allegations in the impugned first information report regarding demand of dowry is false, baseless and without any substance. It is further argued that as a matter of fact, the petitioner no.1 had borne the major financial obligations of the functions of the marriage. The deceased was a lady of stubborn nature and she used to ill-treat the petitioners and other family members as the marriage was a love marriage. She was pressurising her husband to live separately from his family and due to the said fact as the husband was not ready to accept the said condition, there was disharmony between the couple. It is argued that the petitioners did not torture or subjected the deceased to cruelty while being in her matrimonial house. It is further argued that the deceased committed suicide on 18.03.2021 in her parental house for which a first information report was lodged on 20.03.2021 which was after a delay of about 48 hrs which is not explained.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing and argued that the allegations in the impugned first information report do construe a cognizable offence. It is argued that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and other family members regarding demand of dowry, harassment and cruelty. It is argued that since the first information report discloses commission of a cognizable offence, investigation is needed and as such, the same cannot be quashed and since the impugned first information report cannot be quashed no interim order of stay of arrest can be granted in favour of the petitioners.
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 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 :- 22.6.2021
AS Rathore / SK
