Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20676 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Pooja And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
(Per: Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J)
Sri Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents and perused the material on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, seeking quashment of impugned FIR dated 24.07.2019, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 325 of 2019, under sections 366 I.P.C., Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that impugned FIR has been lodged making false and baseless allegations. It was submitted that petitioner no.1 Smt. Pooja is major girl aged about 21 years and she has left her parental house of her own sweet will and performed marriage with the petitioner no.2. They have also applied for registration of their marriage and were living as husband and wife. It was argued that no prima face case is made out against the petitioners and thus the impugned FIR is illegal and thus liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A has opposed and argued that allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence against the petitioner and thus it could not be said that no case is made out against the petitioner.
In the impugned FIR, there are allegations against the petitioner no.2 that he has enticed away petitioner no.1. Petitioners have not produced any satisfactory document of age to show that petitioner no.1 is major. Aadhar card is not relevant document to determine the age of petitioner no.1. Perusal of the impugned FIR and material on record makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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., 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.
(Raj Beer Singh,J) (Pritinker Diwaker,J) Order Date :- 22.8.2019 T.S.