Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
The Court convened through video conferencing.
Heard Sri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, learned A.G.A. 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, Ram Gopal and Rahul Awasthi, seeking quashing of the First Information Report of Case Crime No.0183 of 2021 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 I.P.C., police station Kotwali Dehat, District Bahraich 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 petitioners are the marginal witnesses of the sale deed executed by co-accused Shailendra Pal Singh in favour of the complainant/respondent no.3 even though co-accused Shailendra Pal Singh was not the real owner of the property in question. He argued that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the petitioners have no knowledge about the fraud committed by co-accused Shailendra Pal Singh, 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 the sale deed in question was executed by way of impersonation and the petitioners are the marginal witnesses of the disputed sale deed and their active participation cannot be ruled out. He submitted that from 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 :- 31.5.2021 Rakesh/-