Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2592 of 2021 Petitioner :- Bhopal Singh And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Prashant Rai
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State, Sri Prashant Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and perused the material on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of F.I.R dated 18.02.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 0058 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 420, 120-B, 323, 506, 406 of I.P.C., Police Station Kutubsher, District Saharanpur with a further prayer to stay the arrest of the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the present dispute is a civil dispute which by lodging of the impugned first information has been given criminal colour. It is argued that the petitioners are the owners of plot No. 303 in which their share is 3/4 and 1/4 share of the same is recorded in the name of Raj Kumar and Vinod Kumar. The petitioners are cultivating their share of land which is 3/4 in the said area whereas Raj Kumar and Vinod Kumar are cultivating their 1/4 share of land which was partitioned between them with consent. The respondent no.4 was interested to purchase the share of the petitioners for which unregistered agreement was entered into. The respondent no.4 has given some money to the petitioners and the remaining amount was to be paid within 18 months but even after lapse of the said period the remaining amount was not given. The said agreement was for a period of 18 months only which ended and the balance amount was not paid. The respondent no.4 just two months prior to the expiry of the said agreement gave a legal notice to the petitioners for getting a sale-deed executed to which the petitioners gave a reply stating two dates on which they would be present in the office of Sub- Registrar for the execution of the sale-deed and if the respondent no.4 is willing to purchase the land then he may come with the remaining amount along with required papers. It is argued that the petitioners presented themselves before the Sub Registrar but the respondent no.4 did not turn up. The respondent no.4 has filed a civil suit which has been dismissed for non prosecution whereas the counter claim is pending. It is argued that the dispute is of purely civil nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another V. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Another: (2018) LawSuit(SC) 1138 and has argued that even as per the dictum of the Apex Court, the present writ petition should be allowed and the impugned first information report be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing. It is argued that the perusal of first information report clearly makes out a cognizable offence. It is argued that the allegations are serious in nature and the allegations are such which though relate to the execution of an agreement to sell and of a land to be purchased but there are other allegations of the accused persons indulging in assault and threatening the first informant. It is argued that as such the matter requires investigation and it cannot be said that no offence is made out and the first information report be quashed. It is argued that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Perusal of the impugned F.I.R and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioners. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners relate to disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction of under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
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 petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of 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 make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 6.4.2021 AS Rathore/ SK