Krishna Mani Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4079 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17393 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Krishna Mani Tripathi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Prakash Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dhananjay Kumar Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

By this writ petition a challenge is made to the F.I.R. dated 15.11.2020 registered as Case Crime No.1250 of 2020, for the offence under Sections 420, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are not provable against the illustrious family, as members are serving in the Bank and D.R.D.O. The son is serving in the State Bank of India.

In view of above, the F.I.R. deserves to be set aside. It is more so when the petitioner also went to the police station to lodge an F.I.R. against the complainant. It was not registered thus approached the Court for lodging the F.I.R. An order was passed thereupon by the court.

In the light of the aforesaid also, the F.I.R. deserves to be set aside.

We have considered the submission made by the petitioner and perused the record.

The allegation made in the F.I.R. discloses any offence. Thus, it is not a case where F.I.R. may be quashed as it does not disclose an offence. It is also not a case which can be governed by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal; 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426. The subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court on the issue is in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others; 2017 (2) SCC 779. A case is not made out so as to cause interference in the FIR on any of the grounds set out by the Apex Court.

The F.I.R. cannot be quashed based on presumption and on the ground that illustrious family cannot commit offence of the nature indicated in the F.I.R.

The allegations of the mala fide have been alleged during the course of oral argument. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any pleadings and basis of mala fide to substantiate the arguments. Thus, case is not made out for quashing of the F.I.R. inasmuch as the letter written by the petitioner, enclosed as annexure-12, for lodging FIR is not prior to the F.I.R. in question. No endorsement on the letter exist to show its dispatched prior to the lodging of the F.I.R.

In view of above, we do not find any ground to quash the impugned FIR. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.3.2021

piyush