Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
The Court convened through video conferencing.
Heard Sri Tribhuwan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri U.C. Verma-I 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 petitioner, namely, Raju Yadav, seeking quashing of the First Information Report of Case Crime No. 0053 of 2021 under sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act and Section 420 I.P.C., police station Kuhdaur, district Pratapgah with a further prayer to stay the arrest during the pendency of the investigation of the said case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the name of the petitioner has come into light only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Rakesh Yadav, who is having animosity with the petitioner on account of which he has falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case though no incriminating article has been recovered either from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and moreover, 30 bags containing 690 kgs. contraband article, i.e., Ganja, which is much above the commercial quantity, has been recovered from the container in question the petitioner is said to have fled away from the place of occurrence as has been informed by the co-accused persons, who were arrested on the spot, hence the participation of the petitioner in the present case cannot be ruled out. He further argued that from the perusal of the First Information Report, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, 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.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 4.5.2021 Amit/VKS