Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
The Court has been convened through video conferencing.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Meera Tripathi, 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 with the following prayers:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 30.4.2021, registered as F.I.R. No.55 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 269, 270, 307, 353, 332, 342, 336, 427, 504, 506, 171 (Ga), I.P.C., Section 3 of Epidemic Act and Section 7 of Crl. Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station Ranipur, District Bahraich.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. party not to arrest or adopt any coercive measure against the petitioners on the basis of impugned F.I.R. dated 30.4.2021, registered as F.I.R. No.55 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 269, 270, 307, 353, 332, 342, 336, 427, 504, 506, 171 (Ga), I.P.C., Section 3 of Epidemic Act and Section 7 of Crl. Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station Ranipur, District Bahraich.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioner no.1 had contested the election of Gram Panchayat Gaudariya against the present Gram Pradhan, namely, Jai Prakash alias Nayab, who belongs to ruling party, on account of which the petitioner no.1 along with his family members have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that no specific role has been assigned to the petitioners and only general allegations have been levelled against them. 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 further argued that 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.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith 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, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the 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 :- 31.5.2021 NS/Asheesh