Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15565 of 2020 Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- C.L. Chaudhary,Kanchan Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajesh Yadav
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
Heard Sri C.L. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the private respondent, Gaurav Pratap Singh, learned brief-holder 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, Satish Chandra seeking quashing of the First Information Report of Case Crime No.360 of 2020, u/s 409 IPC, P.S. Debai, district Bulandshahar with a further prayer to stay the arrest during the pendency of the investigation of the said case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inadvertently in the prayer as well as in the body of the petition, the date of FIR has been wrongly mentioned as 8.9.2020 in place of 9.9.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioner without conducting full-fledged enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There is no direct, indirect or credible evidence to involve the petitioner in the present case.
Learned counsel for the private respondent pointed out that the petitions of co-accused persons of the present case have already been dismissed by coordinate Bench of this Court on 18.11.2020, 10.12.2020 and 18.12.2020 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos.12450 of 2020, 13477 of 2020 and 14871 of 2020, hence present petition filed on behalf of the petitioner may also be dismissed by this Court.
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.
(Subhash Chand, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 7.1.2021 Gaurav