Allahabad High Court
Shadab @ Najmuddin vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 June, 2021
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4403 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shadab @ Najmuddin
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Kumar Mishra,Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Sri S.K. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State have appeared through video conferencing.
This writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of FIR dated 26.5.2021 lodged against the petitioner in respect of Crime No. 0231 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 376, 420, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has already been arrested and, therefore, he is confining this petition only for quashment of FIR. It has been argued that a total concocted case has been made against the petitioner just to harass him.
On the other hand, opposing the submissions, it has been argued by the State counsel that prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out and FIR cannot be quashed.
We have heard the parties.
From the contents of FIR, cognizable offence appears to have been made out and the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner may be a good defence but not substantial enough on which basis FIR can be quashed. Considering the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha vs. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433), we find it difficult to quash the proceedings.
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.
The petition has no substance and the same is dismissed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the 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 made a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 23.6.2021
RK
