Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
(By Justice Deepak Verma) Sri Satyvrat Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.M.B.Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
This writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of FIR dated 14.12.2020 lodged against the petitioner in respect of Crime No. 274 of 2020 for the offence under Section 200 I.P.C. & Section 66 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Hamirpur.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a Community Correspondent in India Unheard, Video Volunteers, Community News Service as well as Social Worker, RTI Activist and Director of Migration Society. Petitioner, with an intent to remove illegal activities prevalent in the society, often made reports in newspaper as well as in social media. Petitioner had made report in newspaper and social media like Facebook against the District Administration that the District Administration is not paying any heed to the illegal activities of mines mafia but, District Administration in place of taking any action against the mines mafia, lodged FIR against the petitioner. The present FIR is concocted, frivolous and with malafide intention. He next argued that offences are bailable, as such, arrest of the petitioner may be stayed.
Per contra, State counsel submits that on the complaint/report of the petitioner, an Enquiry Committee was constituted and in enquiry, all allegations made by the petitioner against the District Administration has been found false and frivolous. He further argued that the petitioner only to pressurize the District Administration and to gain attention of the public, has made report against the District Administration in newspaper and post in social media. Moreover, ostensibly, on perusal of the FIR, cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner.
We have heard the parties.
The contents of FIR prima facie make out cognizable offence against the petitioners. Further considering the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha vs. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433), we find it difficult to quash the proceedings.
So far as interim relief is concerned, once we have declined to interfere in the writ petition, question of granting any interim relief to the petitioner does not arise and this has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, 2017 (2) SCC 779 and the order dated 19.11.2020 passed by the Apex Court in the case of Samiksha Singh @ Nikki vs State of U.P. and other in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 4650 of 2020.
The petition has no substance and the same is dismissed.
Dismissal of the writ petition may not come in the way of petitioner to file regular/anticipatory bail application before the competent court.
The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court, Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner(s) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall made a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 SKD