Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16017 of 2019 Petitioner :- Karna Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lallu Singh,Satya Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Sri Surendra Singh, learned counsel for the complainant has filed vakalatnama which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Lallu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State, Sri Surendra Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 09.05.2019 registered as case crime no.183 of 2019, under Sections 376, 506, 323 IPC, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and his name has been implicated in the present case only on account of the fact that his parentage is identical to that of co-accused Kaptan Singh.
Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that petitioner is also known by the name of Kaptan Singh @ Karan Pratap Singh and his father's name is Phool Singh. Also, there are allegations against the petitioner in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.
The Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) 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 as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others (AIR 1992 SC 604) attended with further elaboration that observations and directions contained in Joginder Kumar's case (Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 contradict extension to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under article 226 and the same are intended to be observed in compliance by the Police, the breach whereof, it has been further elaborated, may entail action by way of departmental proceeding or action under the contempt of Court Act. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution as an alternative to anticipatory bail which is not invocable in the State of U.P. attended with further observation that what is not permissible to do directly cannot be done indirectly.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought forth anything cogent or convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction operating on the police to investigate the case.
Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and, therefore, no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Office is directed to return the certified copy of the FIR to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining a photocopy of the same.
(Vivek Varma, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 10.6.2019 Madhurima