Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20812 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kunwar Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
(Per: Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.) Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rahul Gaur, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned FIR dated 09.08.2019, which has been registered as Crime No. 319 of 2019, under Sections 302, 504 of IPC, P.S. Gola, District Gorakhpur.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a sale deed was executed by deceased Sudhir Singh in favour of petitioner no. 1 Kunwar Singh on 14.06.2019 against consideration of Rs. 5,20,000/-. It was pointed out that petitioner no. 2 Shivam Singh is the son of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 3 Jagat Prakash Singh is the father of petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 4 Arun Singh is the witness of the alleged sale deed. An amount of Rs. 5 lacs was transferred in the bank account of deceased Sudhir Singh on 14.06.2019 and Rs. 20,000/- was given in cash at the time of execution of the alleged sale deed. It has also been argued that on 16.06.2019, some dispute arose between deceased Sudhir Singh and his wife and thereafter, Sudhir Singh was kidnapped by his wife, Ravi Pratap Singh and four other persons and thereafter, on 19.06.2019, his dead body was brought by Ravi Pratap Singh and two other persons. On the information of family members of the deceased, police came at the village and inquest proceedings were was conducted and thereafter, the body was sent for postmortem and as per postmortem report, the deceased has sustained one head injury. Thereafter on 30.07.2019 an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the brother of the deceased before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur against respondent no. 3 and one Ravi Pratap Singh, upon which court has called a report from the police and that application is still pending for final adjudication. It was submitted that being annoyed by the petitioners, respondent no. 3 in collusion with the police, lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioners. It has also been argued that the entire allegations made in the impugned FIR against the petitioners are false and baseless and the petitioners have been falsely implicated only for the purpose of harassment. It was stated that petitioners have not committed any offence and prima facie no case is made out against them, hence, the present FIR is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
Perusal of record shows that all the four petitioners are named in the impugned FIR. There are allegations against them that on 19.06.2019 at about 10:00 hours, all the petitioners hurling abuses, started assaulting deceased and they attacked him with rod and resultantly deceased sustained injuries and died while he was being taken to the hospital. 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 v. State of U.P. (2006(56) ACC433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Raj Beer Singh,J.) (Pritinker Diwaker,J.) Order Date :- 22.8.2019 A.Tripathi/Anand