Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard Sri K.K. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Arunendra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the First Information Report and the material on record.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Muste Hasan and Jitendra Kumar, seeking quashing of the First Information Report in Case Crime No. 193 of 2016 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., police station Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya with a further prayer to stay of arrest during the pendency of the investigation of the said case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have no knowledge about the impugned F.I.R. being registered against them. They came to know about the same recently in February, 2021 when the police visited their house in connection with the same, the said fact has been mentioned in para-12 of the present petition. He submits that several F.I.Rs. on similar allegations have been lodged against several persons out of some F.I.Rs. were challenged by the accused persons in the said case before principal Bench of this Court at Allahabad as well as before Lucknow Bench, i.e., Crl. Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 6368 of 2020, 6925 of 2020 and Misc. Bench No. 13378 of 2020 in which interim protection was given to them vide orders dated 25.06.2020, 08.07.2020 and 26.08.2020 copies of which have been annexed as annexure-2 to the present petition, hence the petitioners are also entitled for the similar relief.
Learned AGA argued that from the perusal of the First Information Report, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, and therefore, the present writ petition be dismissed.
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. So far as the order granting interim relief to the other co-accused is concerned by this Court as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, from perusal of the same it is apparent that this Court passed an order staying the arrest of the petitioners in the said case till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., but had rejected the prayer for quashing of the FIR but as the said issue is under challenge and sub judice before the Apex Court in the case of Samiksha Singh @ Nikki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4650 of 2020 in which, while refusing the prayer to quash the First Information Report, the arrest of petitioner was stayed, we do not think it proper to pass the same order in the matter. 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.
However, the petitioners will be at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy under section 438 Cr.P.C., if so advised.
(Rajeev Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 19.2.2021 shiraz