Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25724 of 2019 Petitioner :- Hasan Zahra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Srivastava,Arvind Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 451 of 2019 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. police station Naugawan Sadat District Amroha with a further prayer, not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the first information report.
The allegation in the F.I.R. is that petitioner no. 1 Smt. Hasan Zahra for taking wrongful benefit prepared some forged documents and participated in the marriage of her minor daughter Nazbatul at the ceremony conducted i.e. Samuhik Vivah Yojna under the Scheme of Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and obtained unlawful benefits. Similar allegations are against the petitioner no. 2 who has performed marriage of his two minor daughters under the said Scheme and gained unlawful benefits.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that during enquiry it has come on record that the genuine papers were submitted and the marriage of the daughters of petitioner no. 1 and 2 were valid. It is further submitted that the daughters of the petitioners were major and papers subitted by the petitioners were also genuine and the allegations made in the F.I.R. are wholly false. Hence the FIR deserves to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56)ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569, after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 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 FIR or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.
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 FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is provided that if the petitioners appear or surrender before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 o.k.