Allahabad High Court
Hakim Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 8 May, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:83060-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7338 of 2024
Petitioner :- Hakim Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rishika Raj Singhal,Shivendra Raj Singhal
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
1. Sri Shivendra Raj Singhal, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.3.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shivendra Raj Singhal, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The writ petition seeks quashing of the F.I.R. dated 28.5.2022, registered as Case Crime No. 514 of 2022, under Sections 147, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Quarsi, District- Aligarh, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
4. There is a clear allegation against the petitioner no.1 of committing the alleged offence.
5. So far as petitioner no.1, namely, Hakim Singh is concerned, following order is being passed :-
"From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners. All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the petitioners have got a right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings is therefore refused.
However, it is provided that if the petitioner no.1 appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for anticipatory bail/bail, then the anticipatory bail/bail of the petitioner no.1 shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned.
However, in case, the petitioner no. 1 do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
It is made clear that petitioner no.1 will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above."
6. Regarding petitioner no.2, counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner no.2 has been falsely implicated being wife of petitioner no.1.
7. Petition is disposed of directing that till cognizance is taken on police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., by the court, the respondents shall not arrest the petitioner no.2 pursuant to the First Information Report dated dated 28.5.2022, registered as Case Crime No. 514 of 2022, under Sections 147, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Quarsi, District- Aligarh, subject to cooperation in ongoing investigation.
Order Date :- 8.5.2024
CS/-
