Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.
Challenge in this petition is to the F.I.R. dated 22.12.2009 registered at case crime no. 1081 of 2009 under section 427, 395, 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 3 (1) (x) of the S.C/S.T.,Act P.S. New Agra District Agra.
The occurrence is alleged to have taken on 22.12.2009 at 7.15 am. The author of the F.I.R is complainant Chaudhary Bhoori Singh of village Sikandarpur. According to the allegations in the F.I.R the accused persons who were spearheading a mob of 500-600 persons who were armed variously with hockey, sticks, Sariya, Farsa, descended on the village known as Sikandarpur and in the first instance, they caught hold of Laxman Valmiki and while hurling abusive language at its crudest form at him, forced him to tell the direction of the house of Chaudhary Bhoori Singh at the same time uttering that they would not spare him alive as he was fomenting trouble for Satsangh Sabha by indulging in crude politics. On being commanded by Dr. Prem Saran Satsangi (Guru Maharaj) the mob fanned out in the village and whoever happened to come across them was fired upon by them. The accused persons did not even spare ladies and children and gave them beating besides indulging in looting and setting the houses afire. The accused persons also set the house of Onkar Singh afire and ransacked the household effects of the said house, set afire the motor cycle and took away jewelleries and golden oranments which were stacked in boxes and Almirahs. The attackers encircled the entire village and indulged in indiscriminate firing, looting and beating. It is further alleged that acting on the command of Guruji Maharaj the attackers also tried to fire at the complainant and he escaped unhurt and he had hidden himself. It is also alleged that in the firing done by the attackers, , Sandeep, Virendra, Sukhmal Kamlesh, Jitendra and other village people were badly injured. The accused persons also used foul language against women and while leaving, they threatened the village people with dire consequences. As a motive, it is alleged that on 21.12.2009, the people had staged protest by leading procession to the office of the commissioner against the unlawful acts of Satsang Sabha in uprooting water pipe line, raising un- authorised construction on the pathway and on account of this, the Satsangh Sabha was extremely annoyed. Per contra, it is alleged that Bhuri Singh complainant had covetous eye over the land of Satsang Sabha who had leagued with certain land Mafia and one Major R.B.Sharma. The entire incident it is alleged, was planned and executed at the instance of Major R.B. Sharma in league with one Vikram Barua and C.K.Gautam who used Bhuri Singh as a handle to accomplish what they were unable to accomplish through legal means. It is alleged that on 18.11.2009, Bhuri Singh tried to dig land of Satsang Sabha for laying pipe line but when the officials of Satsangh Sabha remonstrated with him, he left the place. Again on 24.11.2009 the complainant tried to accomplish the object of laying pipe line but he could not succeed. On 20.12. 2009, the complainant again came at the place and forcibly took away various agricultural implements which were kept their for carrying agricultural operation and also damaged the wire fencing. He also damaged the vehicle and took away can containing 60 litres diesel besides assaulting the driver of jeep. In connection with this incident, F.I.R. was lodged at case crime no. 679 of 2009 at 11.50 a.m but the local police prevaricated and did not take any immediate action. It is further alleged that F.I.R lodged by respondent no.4 on 22.12.2009 is nothing but a counter blast to the case lodged by the Satsang Sabha on 20.12.2009 at the police station. It is further alleged that it was mob led by Bhuri Singh which had attacked the people who had collected for Bhandhara at Dayalbagh from every nook and corner and even from abroad and in the said incident as many as 55 people sustained injuries out of which two persons sustained serious injuries and are reported to be in critical condition.
We have heard Sri Gopal Chaturvedi assisted by Sri Sumit Gopal learned counsel for the petitioners at prolix length and also learned A.G.A. We have also been taken through various documents and materials on record.
Attention is drawn to the Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) in which this Court 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. 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 petitioners 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 petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 5.1.2010 MH