Hon'ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and perused the material placed on record including the F.I.R.
At this stage there is no need to issue notice to opposite party no. 3, hence it is dispensed with.
Perusal of the F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, it cannot be quashed.
However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the F.I.R. is under Section 307 I.P.C. and other sections of Indian Penal Code but no injury has been caused to anybody and there is no injury report on record. He further submits that as a matter of fact a NCR was got registered by the petitioner no. 1 against the opposite party no. 4, as mentioned in paragraph 7 of the petition. Thereafter petitioner no. 1 lodged another report against the opposite party no. 4 in respect of grabbing public land under Case Crime No. 51 of 2009, under Sections 467, 468, 419, 420 I.P.C. Police Station Sangipur District Pratapgarh. It is said that opposite party no. 4 had been threatening to the wife of the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Mithilesh Singh who moved three applications dated 13.04.2009, 25.07.2009 and 11.01.2010 to the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh. Learned counsel for the petitioners adds that on account of this, the F.I.R. in question has been lodged making false allegations. They have no criminal history to their credit as mentioned in the F.I.R. in the routine manner.
In view of the above, petition is disposed of with the direction that till any credible and cogent evidence is collected against the petitioners (Rajesh Pratap Singh and Vikram Pratap Singh), they shall not be arrested in Crime No. 9 of 2010 under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. Police Station Sangipur, District-Pratapgarh, subject to their full co-operation in the investigation, which shall go on.
Petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 28.1.2010 ML/-