Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3902 of 2019 Petitioner :- Bachan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sharad Saran Srivastava
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
This writ petition has been filed seeking the quashing of F.I.R. dated 02.08.2018 registered as Case Crime No.0410 of 2018, under Sections -452, 302, 307 I.P.C., P.S.- Khokhraj, District-Kaushambi. Heard petitioner's counsel and learned A.G.A.
Entire record has been perused.
Submission of counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the crime in question. Certain other contentions have also been raised by the petitioners' counsel which relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the worth of prosecution allegations and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of indictment has been questioned, absence of material which may substantiate the allegations has been contended and false implication has been pleaded.
The law regarding sufficiency of grounds which may justify quashing of F.I.R. in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in submission of charge sheet and then eventually in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ingredients constituting the offence is required in order to see whether the F.I.R. requires to be investigated or deserves quashing. The ambit of investigation into the alleged offence is an independent area of operation and does not call for interference in the same except in rarest of rare cases. The view taken in the case of Satyapal vs. State of U.P. and others, 2000 Cr.L.J. 569 which was further confirmed by another Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) makes the position of law in this regard clear and this Court does not find it advisable to whittle down the power or scope of investigation in the given case. The operational liberty to collect sufficient material, if there exists any, cannot be scuttled prematurely by any uncalled for overstepping of the Court. It has to be an extremely discreet exercise.
The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet and the same may also be good grounds to quash the F.I.R. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the case of
Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused in the F.I.R. or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable or impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted only with ulterior motive or grudge and vengeance alone, may be illustratively the fit cases for the High Court in which the F.I.R. or the criminal proceedings may be quashed. If a particular case falls in some such categories as recognized by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal's case, it may justify the interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power as provided in Code of Criminal Procedure or in exercise of its powers vested by the Constitution of India.
Illumined by the case law referred to herein above, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.
The F.I.R. in the present case has been lodged by the first informant Bachan Singh regarding murder of his nephew Vijendra Singh. In this incident the wife of first informant's brother namely Smt. Rooprani had also sustained injuries. On such information the F.I.R. in the present case was lodged u/s 452, 302, 307 I.P.C. against unknown persons. Later on Smt. Rooprani also succumbed to her injuries and died in the hospital on 5.8.2018. Perusal of the post-mortem report of Vijendra Singh shows that he had sustained as many as five injuries on his person. The post-mortem report of Smt. Rooprani also shows three injuries on her body. During investigation the Investigating officer has recorded second statement of first informant who had stated therein that due to some dispute regarding elopement of one Sarita daughter of Nokhe Lal, the aforesaid Nokhe Lal, his son i.e. the present petitioner and some other had committed murder of the deceased persons of the present case. The first informant had further deposed that the petitioner and two other accused persons were seen by the brother of the first informant namely Kallu near Bank of Baroda at about 8 to 9 P.M. Another witness namely Ram Chandra Vishwakarma, whose statement has also been annexed as Annexure no.5 to the present writ petition, also stated that it was talk of the town that co-accused Nokhe Lal along with other persons had got murdered the deceased persons.
The submissions made by the petitioner's learned counsel call for determination on pure questions of fact which may be adequately discerned only through proper investigation. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins or where the investigating agency should not be given fullest opportunity to make proper inquiry and reach at the just conclusions in the matter. This Court does not deem it proper to suffocate or trammel the ambit and scope of independent investigation into the case. A more elaborate discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during investigation or trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the record makes out prima facie offences at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for investigation in the case. We do not find any justification to quash the F.I.R. or the proceedings against the accused arising out of it as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
The prayer for quashing the same is refused as we do not see any breach of constitutional provisions or any abuse of the process of law.
In view of aforesaid the writ petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 M. Kumar