Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard Sri Anuj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State/respondents and perused the First Information Report and the material on record.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Shiv Nandan Singh, Ram Shankar, seeking to quash the First Information Report dated 09.01.2008 registered as Case Crime No. C-1 of 2008, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., police station Sandila, District Hardoi with a further prayer to stay the arrest during the pendency of the investigation of the said case.
It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the year 2008, First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioners on the basis of application filed under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but thereafter final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer. Being aggrieved, the private respondent has filed protest petition, in which the learned Magistrate has ordered for further investigation in the year 2011, but till date no charge-sheet has been filed and the matter is still pending for investigation, hence the impugned F.I.R. 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. He further submits that against the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the protest petition filed by the private respondent, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing application, bearing no. 4238 of 2011, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, 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 petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
.
(Rajeev Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 29.1.2021 Ajit/-