Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10708 of 2018
Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Swati Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 24.3.2018 registered as case crime 76 of 2018 under sections 302, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Manda, District Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased, who was a 12 years boy of the informant while playing fell in the Well on account of which he died and his last rites were performed. The incident took place on 18.3.2018 and on 20.3.2018 another boy told the informant that while he was playing with the deceased, the petitioner had thrown the deceased into the Well and after four days of receiving of the said information, the present F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent no. 3 which raises some doubt regarding the prosecution story, hence the present F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence and submitted that the manner in which the incident has taken place and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. appears to be satisfactorily explained in the F.I.R. and there is no reason to doubt the F.I.R. Moreover the informant of the case has come up before this Court and filed a petition praying for expeditious disposal of the investigation in which direction was issued by this Court on 24.4.2018.
The Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) 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 as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others (AIR 1992 SC 604) attended with further elaboration that observations and directions contained in Joginder Kumar's case (Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 contradict extension to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under article 226 and the same are intended to be observed in compliance by the Police, the breach whereof, it has been further elaborated, may entail action by way of departmental proceeding or action under the contempt of Court Act. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution as an alternative to anticipatory bail which is not invocable in the State of U.P. attended with further observation that what is not permissible to do directly cannot be done indirectly.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has not brought forth anything cogent or convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction operating on the police to investigate the case.
Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and/therefore no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Shiraz