Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard Sri Rohit Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Farhat Jamal Siddiqaui, learned AGA for the State and perused the First Information Report and the material on record.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Avadhesh Kumar Pandey, Devendra Mani Pandey, Saurya Pandey @ Ashu, Prabhat Pandey, Gyan Chandra Dubey & Durgesh Kumar Tripathi, seeking quashing of the First Information Report dated 26.1.2021,registered as FIR/Case Crime No.28 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 336, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) da/3(1)gha/3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kandhai, District Pratapgarh with a further prayer to stay of their arrest during the pendency of the investigation of the said case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset has pointed that the petitioner no.3, namely, Saurya Pandey @ Ashu is a minor boy aged about 16 years as per the High School Marksheet, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition and he does not want to press the present writ petition on behalf of petitioner no.3.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as not press with respect to petitioner no.3, namely, Saurya Pandey @ Ashu with liberty to avail appropriate remedy available under law.
So far as rest of the petitioner nos. 1,2, 4, 5 & 6 are concerned, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.Though the petitioner no.2 has also received injury on his head in the incident but not F.I.R. could be lodged against the respondent no.5 and the present F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent no.5 against the petitioners who belong to one and same family just for the purpose of harassment and oblique motive. The allegations levelled against the petitioner is baseless. No offence is made out against the petitioners, hence, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and argued that three persons from the side of the complainant have received injuries on their persons including the incised wound etc. in the incident and further from the perusal of the First Information Report, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, and therefore, the present writ petition be dismissed.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P. and others : (2006) 56 ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2000 Cr.L.J. 569 after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and others : AIR 1992 SC 604 that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.
Further the Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani : (2017) 2 SCC 779 has disapproved an order restraining the Investigating Agencies arresting the accused where prayer of quashing the First Information Report has been refused.
From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Rajeev Singh,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 11.2.2021 NS