Mateen And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 38787 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mateen And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 25 November, 2024

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:183923-DB
 

 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17890 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Mateen And 4 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Husna Bano,Manindra Mohan Pandey,Pankaj Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Dileep Singh Yadav,G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned AGA and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record. The supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 17.09.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0780 of 2024 under Sections 191 (2), 115 (2), 303, 75, 118 (2), 351 (2) BNS, P.S. Kotwali Kannauj, Distt. Kannauj and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against them are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioners, hence, the same be quashed.

4. Learned A.G.A, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, which discloses cognizable offence. He has further submitted that truthfulness of allegations and establishment of guilt take place, when the investigation is done or trial proceeds. Probability, reliability or genuineness cannot be looked under Art.226 of the Constitution. The FIR can only be quashed in a writ jurisdiction, if the FIR does not discloses commission of offence and that too prior to framing of charges. As such it is submitted that no interfere is required in the matter.

5. Correctness or otherwise of the F.I.R. allegation need not be examined by us, at this stage, inasmuch as all these issues can be determined at the stage of investigation/trial. Since the First Information Report, prima facie, discloses commissioning of cognizable offence, the prayer made to quash the First Information Report is, therefore, declined in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315, as also in latest judgment in Criminal Appeal No.843 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10913 of 2023 (Directorate of Enforcement vs. Niraj Tyagi and others) connected with Criminal Appeal No.844 of 2024.

6. The writ petition is disposed of leaving it open for the petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 25.11.2024

SP/