Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 34331 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pradeep And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Faneesh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Saif Ali
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard Sri Faneesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Saif Ali, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that an incident had taken placed, with regard to which two different FIR have been lodged by the parties of either sides. There is two different versions of the same incident. Much reliance has been placed on the G.D. Entry, copy of which is annexed as annexure no.1 to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which shows that the grandmother of the victim/deceased had made a mention that the girl has committed suicide and no one is responsible for that. Subsequently after a period of 15 days, it appears and as has been contended that an application under Section 156(3) was filed, in pursuance of which the FIR has been registered. Reliance has also been placed on annexure no.4 to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which is a report of the police authority, contents of which is self explicit. It has not been disputed between the counsel for both the sides as well as the learned AGA for the State, that issues involved are debatable and that too require an investigation. Further contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioners shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.
In case the petitioners do not participate or not cooperate with the investigation, liberty is given to the complainant as will as the police authority to move a recall application before this Court itself.
The SSP concerned will personally monitor the investigation and will ensure that investigation will be concluded preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the authority concerned.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018/VKG