Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12180 of 2021 Petitioner :- Jitendra Prakash Dixit @ Jitendra Kumar Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghuvansh Misra,Ashvani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Shri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A for the State respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri Sanjai Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no.3.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 17.10.2021 registered as Case Crime No.1025 of 2021 under Sections 147, 448, 504, 306 IPC at Police Station Chakeri, District Purvi, Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
While assailing the impugned FIR the precise case has been set up before us that on the basis of allegations made in the FIR, no case is made out against the petitioner for abetment as defined under Section 107 of IPC and as such, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgements of Apex Court in Ude Singh and others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301 (paras 16.1 and 16.2) as well as in Criminal Appeal No.1164 of 2021, arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.4512 of 2019 (Geo Varghese vs. the State of Rajasthan & another) decided on 05.10.2021. He has also placed reliance on the dying declaration dated 17.10.2021, which is appended as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant have raised objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition. They submit that the cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and the same would be subject matter of investigation.
Once the objection is raised by learned counsel for the respondents, then we have proceeded to examine the record in question and find that in Ude Singh and others vs. State of Haryana (supra) the special leave to appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated 05.05.2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 964-SB of 1997 whereby, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, while upholding the conviction of accused-appellants for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC, has modified the sentence of four years’ rigorous imprisonment, as awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1997, to that of rigorous imprisonment for two and half years. Finally, the Apex Court has partly allowed the said appeal. In Geo Varghese vs. the State of Rajasthan & another (supra) the SLP (Crl) was filed against the judgment and order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur dismissing the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the First Information Report dated 02.05.2018 registered as Case No. 162 of 2018 at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur City (South). In the said case, it was held by the Supreme Court that High Court was not justified in dismissing the application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the First Information Report in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction and quashed the FIR registered as Case No.162 of 2018 at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur City (South).
In the first case, Ude Singh and others vs. State of Haryana which is cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, the appeal has reached to the Apex Court. So far as the second case in Geo Varghese vs. the State of Rajasthan & another the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been decided by the Apex Court.
Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
We are constrained to make any observations at this stage. We are also refrained ourselves to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the judgements so cited before us may be looked and examined by the competent court.
With the aforesaid leave, the present writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 RKP