Allahabad High Court
Shashi Kapoor Rai vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 4 March, 2021
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Reserved
In Chamber
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12788 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shashi Kapoor Rai
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard Shri Prabhakar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
By means of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the F.I.R. dated 08.08.2020 giving rise to Case Crime No. 133 of 2020, under Section 507 I.P.C., Police Station- Belhar Kalan, District Sant Kabir Nagar. This F.I.R. was lodged on 08.08.2020.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an offence under Section 507 I.P.C. is not cognizable and, therefore, the F.I.R. itself, could not have been registered. It could at best have been registered as a non cognizable report and that no investigation was possible without the permission contemplated under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner is a man of clean antecedent. The report has been lodged only on account of political rivalry. Under the circumstances, the F.I.R. itself, is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA on the other hand submitted that a wrong section has been mentioned in the F.I.R. The allegations made in the F.I.R. clearly constitute an offence under Section 506 I.P.C., which is a cognizable offence. He is also relied upon the short counter affidavit filed by him, wherein a copy of the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner has been appended. He is submitted that since a charge sheet has been filed, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and is liable to be dismissed as such.
In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2002 CrLJ 4265 to buttress his contentions. He has also submitted that on the petition being filed further investigation have been stayed by this Court. Therefore, the charge-sheet that has been filed is mala-fide and deserves to be ignored. The police never sought permission as contemplated under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. for investigating the matter. The writ petition is therefore liable to be allowed.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
At the very outset, it would be relevant to state that the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. clearly constitute an offence under Section 506 I.P.C. and not 507 I.P.C. because the identity of the person is clearly disclosed therein, namely the petitioner. There is no allegation and the F.I.R. that the petitioner tried to conceal his identity while threatening the first informant. It is only not a case of criminal intimidation where the petitioner tried to conceal or hide his identity. We are therefore constrained to hold that Section 507 I.P.C. was wrongly mentioned in the impugned FIR and that it should have been registered under Section 506 IPC.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation could not have been carried out on account of the interim order operating in the writ petition is a question, which may be raised by the petitioner in proper contempt proceedings.
The only contention, which survives for consideration is the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that an offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is non cognizable, for which purpose he has relied upon the following judgments.
The issue stands settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Mata Sewak Upadhyay and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1995, AWC 2031, wherein the notification No.777/VII-9-4(2) (87) dated 31.07.1989 (Issued by the State Government) making an offence under Section 506 IPC , cognizable and non-bailable, as valid, petitioner has been rendered by a Division Bench. However, the decision of the Full Bench in Mata Sewak Upadhyay is binding upon us.
Under the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Since and on the basis of the allegations made in the F.I.R. a cognizable offence under Section 506 I.P.C. was clearly disclosed and the police has after investigation submitted a charge-sheet under the same section against the petitioner, this writ petition does not survive and is hereby dismissed as infructuous.
Order Date :- 04.03.2021
Mayank
