Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1695 of 2021
Petitioner :- Malika Bano And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishabh Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Saurabh Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Rishabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents, Sri Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and perused the material on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners Malika Bano and Khurram Kha seeking quashment of FIR dated 17.9.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 227 of 2020, for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station Firozabad South, District Firozabad with a further prayer to stay the arrest of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. It is further argued that the parties have entered into a compromise and have settled their dispute outside the court. Copy of the said compromise has been annexed as annexure no. 4 to the writ petition, which has been placed before the Court to buttress the said argument. It is argued that looking to the fact that compromise has been entered into between the parties, the present F.I.R. be quashed as the dispute is basically a personal dispute and is a dispute of civil in nature.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and argued that in the F.I.R. as many as five persons have been named as accused and there are serious allegations against them. It is argued that compromise has been entered between the first informant/respondent no. 3 and three named accused persons namely Malaka Bano, Mahboob Ali and Khurram Khanam but two other accused persons namely Smt. Rubeena Khanam and Sajid Pathan are not the parties in the compromise. The said compromise has been placed by learned State counsel before the Court in support of his argument. It is argued that from perusal of the F.I.R. cognizable offence is disclosed. It is further argued that since the compromise is with some of the named accused persons and not all of the named accused persons and more so, the perusal of the F.I.R. would go to show that cognizable offence is made out, the matter requires investigation and the compromise as alleged may not be given credence as the same is not with all of the parties in dispute. It is argued that as such the petition be dismissed.
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 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.
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 petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner (s) along with 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.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such 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 :- 6.4.2021/Naresh