Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard Sri Shrikant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.P. Singh, learned AGA 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, Rajeev Singh @ Ajay Singh, Surendra Pratap Singh and Narendra Pratap Singh, seeking quashing of the First Information Report No. 027 of 2021 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7 C.L.A. Act, police station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh with a further prayer to stay the arrest during the pendency of the investigation of the said case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that from the F.I.R. itself, it is apparent that heavy police force was present at the place of occurrence, hence it was not possible for the petitioners to assault the injured the complainant police party. He further submits that from the impugned F.I.R. it is also apparent that the offence under section 332 I.P.C. was added. He also tried to demonstrate the highhandedness of the police personnel at the instance of one Vinay Singh. So far as injuries received by the injured are concerned, the same are simple in nature, hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and argued that from the perusal of the First Information Report, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. He further submits that in the present case four persons have received injuries on their person and only on account of the fact that the injured have received simple injuries, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed as for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. intention is to be seen and not the injuries, 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. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.