Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Dwarika Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed before this Court for quashing of the First Information Report dated 24.02.2021 lodged as Case Crime No. 043 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Aurai, District Sant Ravidas Nagar with a further prayer to stay the arrest of the petitioners during pendency of investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that on the basis of Khatauni of Abadi Plot No. 288-C, petitioners were exclusive owners of the plot in respect of their share of area 240 sq. meter out of plot No. 288 situated at Khamriya, Tehsil Aurai, District Bhadohi which was transferred through a sale deed dated 02.01.2019 in favour of Anish Ahmad, whose name was mutated in the revenue records which was not challenged till the filing of the application dated 07.11.2020 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of which the impugned First Information Report has been registered. It is argued that the respondent no.3 did not challenge the execution of the sale deed or order of mutation before any Court or authority and, as such, the same became final and he had no right, interest or title over the property in dispute. It is argued that a civil suit has been filed by the respondent no.3 on 26.09.2013 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gyanpur Bhadohi in which it is admitted fact that 1/4th share in the suit property as detailed in the schedule of the plaint was purchased by the father of the petitioners in the year 1977. It is argued that the dispute is between the family members as the petitioners are the real uncle of the respondent no.3. The civil suit was decided in terms of compromise and a decree was passed whereby the compromise was a part of the decree. The petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 had no knowledge about the said suit and the compromise entered into and even the ex-parte decree on the basis of compromise and after coming to know of it, they have filed a suit No. 63 of 2020 for declaring the said compromise and ex-parte judgment and decree dated 23.11.2013 as null and void which is still pending. It is argued that subsequently an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 07.11.2019 was filed after the issuance of notice in Civil Suit No. 63 of 2020 on the basis of which the impugned First Information Report has been registered. It is argued that the allegations in the First Information Report are attended with malafides and, as such, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant and the learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR. It is argued by both the learned counsels that perusal of the First Information Report makes out a case for investigation cognizable in nature. It is argued that in no manner it can be said that the First Information Report does not make out any offence. It is further argued that the argument regarding the filing of suits between the parties is the defence of the accused persons which can not be looked into at this stage. It is prayed that the present writ petition be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is apparent that a perusal of the impugned First Information Report and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioners. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners relate to dispute questions of fact which can not be adjudicated upon by this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021) in its judgment dated 13th April, 2021 has in detail held that the Courts should not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the First Information Report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule. Ordinarily, the Courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. The First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details regarding the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the Court should not go into merits of the allegations made in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the dictum of the Apex Court as stated above, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition 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 :- 16.4.2021 M. ARIF