Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24347 of 2018
Petitioner :- Madan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikrant Neeraj,Chandrakesh Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Vikrant Neeraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 30.1.2018, registered as case crime No.48 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 352, 336, 332, 353, 504, 427 I.P.C. (omitted Section 332 I.P.C.
and added Section 333 I.P.C.), P.S. Chandaus, District Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with malafide intention.He further submitted that initially an FIR was lodged against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 307, 352, 336, 332, 353, 504, 427 I.P.C. which was registered as Case Crime No.48 of 2018 at P.S. Chandaus, District Aligarh, which was challenged by him before this Court by means of filing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.20170 of 2018 and the prayer for quashing the FIR was refused by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.7.2018 and the petitioner was directed to obtain bail within a period of 30 days, copy of which is annexed at page-26 of the writ petition, but when the petitioner appeared before the Court concerned to obtain bail, it is stated that in place of Section 332 I.P.C., Section 333 I.P.C. has been added, hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. No offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, FIR is liable to be quashed. He further pointed out that some of the accused have already been granted bail in all the offences.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence.
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 petitioners 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.
However, if the petitioner moves bail application before the court below, the court below while considering his bail application shall take into account the aforesaid fact as has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner.
The application stands disposed of.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 5.9.2018 NS