Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25721 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mithilesh @ Khiru And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR dated 19.06.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 0264 of 2019, under Sections 323, 506, 354 I.P.C., Police Station Saraimmrej, District Prayagraj with a further prayer, not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the first information report.
The facts in brief, as per the FIR, are that the daughter of the informant, Km. Annu aged about 15 years went behind the house for household chores where the accused Mithilesh @ Kheeru seeing her alone started misbehaving with her daughter and said that he loved her and when she objected he threatened her with dire consequences. It is further alleged that one day when the younger sister of Km. Annu went to a shop to purchase some thing, Mithilesh @ Kheeru came there and gave Rs. 500/- and a letter and when she declined he threatened her. She came back home crying and disclosed the entire story to the informant and when the family members went to Mithilesh @ Kheeru, he was in the house of one Raju who also started arguing with the informant and other family members and tried to save Mithilesh.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.4 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners as no date or time of the alleged incident has been mentioned in the FIR. It is further submitted that the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the FIR version and the statement itself has been recorded after a delay of about six months. It is submitted that there is political rivalry and the petitioner no.2 is brother-in-law of the village Pradhan and the husband of the Village Pradhan had earlier lodged an FIR on 19.06.2019 about an incident which took place on 17.06.2019 and registered as Case Crime no. 066 of 2019 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC against Shubham Bhartiya, Krishna, Sunil Bhartiya, Abhimanyu, Satyam Bhartiya, Badelal and 3 unknown persons and the present FIR has been lodged by informant in collusion with the Ex-Pradhan as a counterblast only to harass the petitioners. Hence the FIR deserves to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations. It is further submitted that the victim is a minor girl aged about 15 years who in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically named the two petitioners as the person who misbehaved with her and tried to commit rape upon her. Therefore, the complicity of the petitioners in the crime cannot be ruled out at this stage.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56)ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569, after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. 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 FIR 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 FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 Kirti