Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, praying for quashing of the First Information Report, registered as Case Crime No. 1457 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad, with a further prayer to stay their arrest during pendency of investigation of the said case.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and stay of arrest and submitted that from the perusal of First Information Report, commission of a cognizable offence is clearly made out, therefore, the writ petition be dismissed.
The specific allegation in the FIR is that the first informant while he was going from his home to market to buy certain things, was intercepted by Nitesh, Sachin Thakur, Sumit Thakur, Lakshya Thakur, Shailendra Thakur, Nitin Chauhan, Teekaram and Sahil Chauhan. They fired at him, but there was a narrow escape. However, he was grievously injured by use of iron rods and hockey sticks. He informed the police about the incident on Phone No. 112. The police took the first informant and got him medically examined in Government Hospital, where he was treated for two days. Though the incident took place on 9.3.2020, but the FIR was lodged on 18.12.2020. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned FIR is by way of counterblast. The petitioners and their side had in the past registered two FIRs against the first informant and in order to exert pressure on the petitioners, the instant FIR was got registered. It is further submitted that delay of about nine months in registering the FIR is fatal and on this ground alone the FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA submitted that the incident dated 9.3.2020 is not in dispute, inasmuch as, the petitioners lodged a NCR in connection with the same incident. He further submitted that on the date of incident, medical examination of the first informant was got done by the police in Government Medical College. The injury report clearly reveals that he received several injuries, one being a bone deep lacerated wound with fresh bleading. It is urged that in the circumstances, merely on ground of delay, the FIR cannot be quashed.
We find considerable force in the submission of learned AGA. The incident dated 9.3.2020 is not in dispute. There are cross versions about the same incident and in connection with it, the petitioners had also lodged a NCR. The injury report shows that several injuries were received by the first informant. The FIR clearly discloses commission of a cognizable offence.
The issue left for consideration is whether delay of nine months in registering the FIR is fatal and whether on this ground alone, the FIR can be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on judgment of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 2018 (Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another), decided on 20.3.2018. In the said case, the complainant was an employee of Government department. An adverse entry was made against him by his senior. He sought permission for prosecution of his senior under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner before the Supreme Court dealt with the matter and declined to grant sanction. This led to filing of another complaint against the petitioner. The question for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether complaint lodged against the petitioner in respect of matter dealt within official capacity, is sustainable in law. While dealing with the issue, the Supreme Court quoted with approval the guidelines laid down in its previous judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P., 2014 (2) SCC 1, in respect of holding of preliminary inquiry in certain type of cases so that the process of criminal law is not abused. One such category of cases is where there is considerable delay in initiating criminal prosecution. After going through the said judgment, we are of the opinion that the same does not apply to the facts of the instant case, inasmuch as, the incident which took place on 9.3.2020 is not in dispute. In fact, the petitioners had lodged a NCR in relation to thereto against the first informant. As observed above, the medical report also substantiates the allegation that the first informant received injuries in the attack made upon him. Having regard to the above facts, we are of the opinion that the matter requires proper investigation and the FIR cannot be quashed on the sole ground of delay in registering the FIR.
Before parting, we would like to quote the observations made by the Supreme Court in Jogender Kumar Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1349 in relation to personal liberty of a citizen and the manner in which police officer should exercise his power to arrest accused person, so that the same is duly complied with:-
"No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. Aperson is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do."
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. This is without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to seek anticipatory bail/bail, as may be maintainable or advised. If any such recourse is taken, the bail application shall be disposed of expeditiously, without being influenced by any observation made in the instant order.
(Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 12.2.2021 Jaideep/-