Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Shri Sanjeev Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents no.1, 2 and 3 and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- Sangeeta Devi and Malti with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certioari to quash the impugned FIR dated 09.08.2021 bearing FIR No.0116 of 2021, under Sections 147, 308 (converted into Section 304), 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Barasagwar, District Unnao with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.1 is a Head Teacher in Primary School and resides at her matrimonial home about 50 kms. away from the place of occurrence and she had no concern with the alleged incident. Petitioner no.2 happens to be mother of petitioner no.1 and is aged about 69 years and she is also suffering from old age diseases. He next argued that initially the FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., but after the death of injured Section 308 I.P.C. has been converted to Section 304 I.P.C. He next argued that the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioners just for harassment with oblique motive. The entire allegations levelled against the petitioners are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless, hence, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and submitted that the petitioners are named in the FIR along with six others. He next argued that the petitioners and other accused persons had assaulted the injured person, who later on succumbed to his injuries. He next argued that the plea of alibi cannot be examined by this Court in a writ petition as the same can be adjudged during the course of trial on the basis of the evidence adduced by the petitioners. He next argued that the impugned F.I.R. discloses a cognizable offence against the petitioners, and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned F.I.R., which clearly shows that cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the F.I.R. or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioners.
The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
( Saroj Yadav, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2021 Anand/-