Allahabad High Court
Ajay Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 29 June, 2021
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4714 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ajay Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Harsh Vardhan Shastri
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Matter taken up through video conferencing.
Heard Sri Harsh Vardhan Shastri, for the petitioner and Sri Amit Sinha, for the State through Video Conferencing and perused the material on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of F.I.R dated 4.6.2021 registered as Case Crime No.231 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 323/325 I.P.C., Police Station Dhaulana, District Hapur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that a non-cognizable report about the same incident was got registered by the respondent no.4 against the petitioners in which the police illegally arrested the petitioner nos.1 and 3 on 17.5.2021, proceedings under Section 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. were also initiated illegally at that point of time and then they were released on furnishing bonds and sureties. It is argued that on identical facts, the impugned FIR has been registered. It is argued that there was no occasion for lodging of the present FIR on same facts and as such the same is with malafide intention as two prosecution proceedings cannot carry on against the same accused for the same version for the same incident. The lodging of the impugned FIR is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing and stay of arrest. It is argued that in so far as the proceedings under Section 151/107/116 Cr.P.C. are concerned, they are separate proceedings which arise out of a report of the concerned police station. It is further argued that in so far as the non-cognizable report is concerned, the same was registered under Section 323 I.P.C. only but the impugned FIR has been registered under Section 323 and 325 I.P.C. It is argued that three persons in the present case are alleged to have received injuries. It is further argued that the matter as such requires investigation and since the investigation is required, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed. Since the impugned FIR cannot be quashed as a cognizable offence is made out as per the settled principles of law, no interim order can be granted. The present writ petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
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 :- 29.6.2021
Gaurav
