Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Sri Alok Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Veena Tripathi, 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 to quash the FIR dated 07.05.2021 lodged by opposite party no. 4 under Sections 307, 323, 324, 325, 452, 504 IPC, Police Station Ishanagar, District Lakhimpur Kheri, with a further prayer to stay the arrest during the pendency of the investigation of the said case.
.
At the very outset, learned A.G.A. has stated that no evidence has been found against the petitioners nos. 2 to 4.
As far as the case of petitioner no. 1 is concerned, his case may be considered on merit and we proceed to hear the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that against the F.I.R lodged by the petitioner no. 1, the respondent no. 4 and other persons have also filed a writ petition i.e. Misc. Bench No. 10780 of 2021, which has been disposed of in the light of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. He further submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against the petitioners is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless just for harassment, hence the present F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and argued that there is specific allegation against the petitioner no. 1 of assaulting the victim on his head. He further argued that from the perusal of the First Information Report, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner no. 1, 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 petitioner no. 1 .
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 Arun (Saroj Yadav, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)