Allahabad High Court
Dheeraj Rathi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 27 May, 2022
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on : 18.04.2022
Delivered on : 27.05.2022
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11780 of 2021
Petitioner :- Dheeraj Rathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Pati Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mayank Yadav,Saurabh Kumar Pandey,Vivek Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit has been filed today in Court by Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A for the State respondents and perused the material brought on record.
3. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 14.11.2021 registered as Case Crime No.1781 of 2021, under Sections 376, 377, 313 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr.
4. On 24.12.2021, Writ Court after hearing counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the first informant relegated the matter for amicable settlement to Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The order passed on 24.12.2021 is quoted herein below:-
"The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 14.11.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 1781 of 2021 under Sections 376, 377, 313 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned A.G.A for the State respondents. Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present matter relates to matrimonial dispute, which may be amicably settled by way of mediation and conciliation, therefore, the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.
Taking into account the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- within three weeks from today with the Mediation Centre of this Court, out of which Rs.45,000/- shall be paid to the respondent no. 4 for her appearance before the Mediation Centre and Rs.5,000/- shall go to the Mediation Centre as mediation fee.
The matter is remitted to the Mediation Centre with the direction that after deposit of such amount by the petitioners, it shall issue notice to the parties fixing some date for mediation and shall make all possible efforts to conclude the mediation and conciliation proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.
List after expiry of aforesaid period before the appropriate Bench along with the report of Mediation Centre.
Till the next date of listing, respondents are restrained to arrest the petitioner pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. subject to cooperation in the on-going investigation.
It is made clear that in case there occurs default by the petitioner either in depositing the amount or in appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date fixed, the interim order shall cease to operate and the Mediation Centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the appropriate Bench for passing orders in the matter."
5. Mediation report dated 23.03.2022 states that parties has not made agreement, as such, mediation has been failed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter on merit and placed reliance over the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Maheshwar Tigga Vs. The State of Jharkhand, passed in Criminal Appeal No.635 of 2020 and in the case of Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, passed in Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2021.
7. The case cited by the counsel for the petitioner has no relevance with the present facts of the case. The case cited by the petitioner is entirely different from the present facts of the case and, as such, the same is not applicable in the present case.
8. The allegation in the first information report against the petitioner prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence, as such, no interference is required.
9. As per Apex Court judgment passed in the case of The State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, 2017 (2) SCC 779, law is otherwise settled that if the commissioning of cognizable offence is disclosed in the police report the same cannot be quashed and the High Court should restrain to interfere in the cases in which prima facie case is made out.
10. It is equally settled that if the FIR cannot be quashed, no further relief can be granted in exercise of writ proceedings.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find fit case to be interfered.
12. The petition is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to apply for bail.
Order Date :- 27.05.2022
Nitin Verma
(Deepak Verma, J.) (Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.)
