Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4483 of 2018
Petitioner :- Mahtab
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhishek Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent no.3, Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 5.1.2018 registered as Case Crime No.7 of 2018, under Sections 354, 342, 366, 506, 376D I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Mawana, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix, who was a married woman having three children, having some extra marital affair with one Bittu and so far as the petitioner is concerned, his name has come into light in the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has alleged that was subjected to rape by the four persons including the petitioners, but subsequently she filed a joint affidavit along with her husband denying participation of the petitioner in the incident. No offence is made out out against the petitioner, hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the caveator states that he has received instructions to oppose the prayer for quashing of the FIR with respect to Bittu, but so far as present petitioner is concerned, he has nothing to say.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) 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.
Taking into account the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.and the affidavit filed by the prosecutrix along with her husband which shows that the petitioner tried to tamper with the evidence, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 22.2.2018/NS