Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard Shri Suresh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anurag Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 0185 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 308, 506, 188, 269 I.P.C. and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, P.S. Gosaiganj, District Sultanpur. A further prayer of mandamus has been sought commanding respondents not to arrest the petitioners in the impugned F.I.R.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R. has been lodged against five accused persons, including the petitioner, however, the victim suffered injuries and later on died, due to which Section 304 I.P.C. has been added subsequently. It is further submitted that though, according to the prosecution, all five persons assaulted the victim, but as per the post mortem report, only one injury is found on the body of the deceased. He also submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case as he was not even present at the place of incident. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that other villagers, to that effect, have also given their affidavits to respondent no. 3.
Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that the injured, who received injuries, succumbed to his injuries and later on died, due to which, offence is converted under Section 304 I.P.C. He further submits 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the judgments cited above, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Further, 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.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Rajeev Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 3.2.2021 VKS