Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
The Court has convened through video conferencing.
Heard Sri Vivek Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the First Information Report and the material brought on record.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Kallu, Amresh, Ramesh and Vishambahr, seeking quashing of the First Information Report of Case Crime No.388 of 2020 under sections 307, 326, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Rampur Mathura, District Sitapur with a further prayer to stay the arrest during the pendency of the investigation of the said case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that daughter of petitioner no.1 is married to respondent no.4, for which an F.I.R. has been lodged against respondent no.4 by the wife of the petitioner no.1 under Section 498-A and 364 I.P.C. on 21.02.2018 and due to this reason, the respondent no.4 has lodged the impugned F.I.R. against the petitioner no.1 and other petitioners, who are the family members of the wife of the respondent no.4.
On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and submitted that petitioner no.1 has assaulted the respondent no.4 with banka, who tried to save himself from the assault and his two fingers were cut down for which he got himself examined in the hospital and also got an x-ray done of his injuries, a copy of which has been annexed with the impugned F.I.R. but the petitioners have not annexed the copy of medical examination and x-ray report. He also submitted that from perusal of the impugned First Information Report, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, and therefore, the present writ petition be dismissed.
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.
Having examined the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the fact that respondent no.4 has sustained injuries and his two fingers have been cut down as is evident from the medical examination and x-ray report and from perusal of the impugned F.I.R., prima facie, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, we are of the view that no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith 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, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the 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 :- 31.5.2021 Rakesh/-