Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16116 of 2019
Petitioner :- Dharmendra Sharma Alias Dharmendra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard Sri A. K. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Archana Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 30.3.2019, registered as case crime No. 0126 of 2019, under Sections 376,313, 323, 506 IPC at P.S. Collector Bukganj, District Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no. 3 is said to be third wife of petitioner and he has been implicated in the present case by the respondent no. 3 just to harass him. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 3 has concealed about her previous second marriage nor has disclosed that she has been given divorce by her earlier second husband, thereafter, petitioner is said to have moved an application under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for declaring his marriage as nullity as the marriage of respondent no. 3 with petitioner has been performed on account of concealment of facts, which was allowed by the court below and the present prosecution of the petitioner is nothing but has been initiated in counter blast to the proceedings initiated against respondent no. 3 by the petitioner.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence.
The Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) 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 as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others (AIR 1992 SC 604) attended with further elaboration that observations and directions contained in Joginder Kumar's case (Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 contradict extension to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under article 226 and the same are intended to be observed in compliance by the Police, the breach whereof, it has been further elaborated, may entail action by way of departmental proceeding or action under the contempt of Court Act. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution as an alternative to anticipatory bail which is not invocable in the State of U.P. attended with further observation that what is not permissible to do directly cannot be done indirectly.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought forth anything cogent or convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction operating on the police to investigate the case.
Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and/therefore no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Vivek Varma, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 11.6.2019 RavindraKSingh