Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
Heard Sri Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Manju Thakur, 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, namely, Shah Ibne Jama, Smt. Najneen Jahan, Farhal Uzzama and Wasi Uzzma, seeking quashing of the First Information Report of Case Crime No. 37 of 2020 under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, police station Mahila Thana, District Amroha with a further prayer to stay the arrest during the pendency of the investigation of the said case.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 is the husband of respondent no. 4. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 2017. Thereafter the impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 roping in the entire family of her husband, petitioner no. 1 containing absolutely false, concocted, vague and sweeping allegations against them that they were demanding dowry from her and her parents and on account of non fulfilment of the alleged demands of dowry she was being tortured and maltreated by them in her matrimonial home. It has next been submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the FIR no credible evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the petitioners' complicity in the commission of the alleged offence, hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and argued that from the perusal of the First Information Report, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, 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.