Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2655 of 2021
Petitioner :- Jai Prakash And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioners filed today, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Dharmendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gambir Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents and perused the material on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners Jai Prakash, Sunil Kumar, Rajendra Singh and Smt. Rajni Devi, seeking quashment of FIR dated 4.3.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 36 of 2021, for the offence under Section 379 of I.P.C., Police Station Kadaura, District Jalaun with a further prayer to direct not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are the owners of the truck in dispute which have been seized by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalpi, Jalaun and the District Officer, Mines and Minerals Office, Orai, Jalaun, and have been detained at Police Station- Kadaura, District- Jalaun. It is argued that the allegations as levelled in the impugned first information report are false and incorrect which are that the material loaded in the seized vehicles which were detained on the pretext of being overloaded has been stolen by the petitioners. It is argued that since the vehicles have been seized as they were suspected to be overloaded the proceedings have to be initiated under the Motor Vehicles Act, but the present F.I.R. has been lodged just in order to falsely implicate and harass the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before the Court para-12 wherein he has quoted certain provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and has stressed upon Section 194(1) of the same to buttress his argument. It is argued that the authorities are not proceeding in the matter in true spirit of the said Act and have lodged the impugned F.I.R. for which no case is made out against the petitioners since the vehicles in question were in continuous custody of the Transport and the Police Authority after being apprehended and hence, there was no occasion for the petitioners to indulge in any illegal act as alleged. It is argued that as such the present F.I.R. be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and argued that the allegations in the F.I.R. are to the effect that the petitioners who are the owners of the truck in question, have illegally committed theft of material loaded on truck. It is argued that reading of the F.I.R. do discloses commission of cognizable offence. It is further argued that the truthfulness of the allegations will be seen during investigation and the present matter is such in which investigation is needed. It is further argued that the argument as advanced for the offence under the Motor Vehicles Act has no bearing to the present case as the same is totally different than that of the present occurrence. It is argued that the present writ petition be dismissed.
Perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioners. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners relate to disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in jurisdiction of under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
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 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 (s) 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 :- 6.4.2021 Naresh