Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12458 of 2021 Petitioner :- Bhaskar Rai Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhaskar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Subhash Chandra Yadav
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
The petitioner in person is not present.
Heard Sri Subhas Chandra Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4, whose Vakalatnama has already been uploaded and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
Present petition has been filed with following prayer:-
"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, directing Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh to register First Information Report under suitable sections of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Indian Penal Code 1860, in this issue, against station officer of Baradah police station district Azamgarh, medical office of Community Health Center Baradah District Azamgarh and Amit Kumar Rai, and investigate if further.
2. Order authorities to investigate the crime number 131/2021 registered in police station Baradah, district Azamgarh, a fresh, outside the district Azamgarh.
3. Pass such other and further order(s) in addition to or in substitution for, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. To award the costs of the writ petition."
Earlier petition filed by the petitioner being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6477 of 2021 (Bhaskar Rai vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others) challenging the first information report dated 12.06.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 0131 of 2021 was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.8.2021. The said order dated 17.8.2021 is quoted as under:-
"Sri Ashok Kumar Rai, counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR dated 12.06.2021 registered as Crime No. 0131 of 2021, for the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 of IPC, Police Station Bardah, District Azamgarh lodged by respondent no.3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based on frivolous allegations, the present FIR has been registered against him and co- accused persons. He submits that considering the medical report of the injured, it is evident that at least offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out. Learned counsel further submits that if FIR cannot be quashed, then by way of interim order, the arrest of the petitioner be stayed.
Per contra, State counsel has argued that the basic ingredients of Section 308 of IPC are attracted as intention and knowledge both can be gathered from the FIR. He submits that even otherwise medical report of the injured cannot be considered at this stage and only after investigation, the police could come to a conclusion as to what offence has been committed. He further submits that FIR discloses commission of other offences also and thus the FIR cannot be quashed and no interim protection can be granted.
We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
A 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.
The Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021) in its judgment dated 13th April, 2021 has in detail held that the Courts should not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the First Information Report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule. Ordinarily, the Courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. The First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details regarding the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the Court should not go into merits of the allegations made in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation.
From a 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.
The party shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner 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 make a declaration of such verification in writing. "
Learned A.G.A. submitted that a charge- sheet no. 162 of 2021 dated 26.08.2021 has already been submitted in the present case, as such, the petition has become infructuous.
Insofar as the prayer for registration of FIR against any person under suitable sections of Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, the remedy lies elsewhere. Further, once charge- sheet has been submitted for other reliefs so claimed, again the remedy lies elsewhere.
Present petition is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 Aditya Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA Date: 2021.12.23 17:16:36 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by CHANDRA KUMAR RAI Date: 2021.12.23 17:17:13 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad