Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6980 of 2021 Petitioner :- Govind Prasad Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Parmeshwar Yadav,Madan Mohan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Sri Parmeshwar Yadav, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR dated 4.8.2021 registered as Crime No. 91 of 2021, for the offence under Section 8/22 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, Section 18A/27 of Aushadi Evam Prasadhan Samagri Adhiniyam, 1940, Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 63/65 of Copy Right Act, 1957 Police Station Thuthibari, District Maharajganj.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is having a valid licence in the name of Ayush Medical Agency to sell, stock, exhibit, offer for sale, distribute by wholesale of drugs. He further submits that on account of political victimization, the petitioner has been roped in the present case. He submits that earlier also, an FIR was registered against the petitioner under Section 8/22 of NDPS Act on 5.2.2021, the present FIR being the second FIR on the same facts cannot sustain. Learned counsel further submits that if FIR cannot be quashed, then at least by way of interim order, the arrest of the petitioner be stayed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashing and stay of arrest. He submits that it is the petitioner from whose house, huge quantity of intoxicating injections, medicines, syrups and printed labels were recovered and no valid license was produced by the petitioner or his agent when asked by the authorities. It is further argued that the earlier FIR dated 5.2.2021, lodged against the petitioner and other persons u/s 8/22 of NDPS Act, is on different facts and circumstances and hence, the present FIR is permissible in the eyes of law. Moreover, from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and hence, his prayer for quashing of the FIR or staying the arrest cannot be granted.
Perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The submissions made by counsel for the petitioner relate to disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction of 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 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 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 :- 19.8.2021 RK Digitally signed by Justice Pritinker Diwaker Date: 2021.08.25 12:56:33 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by Justice Manju Rani Chauhan Date: 2021.08.25 12:58:19 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad