Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14447 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shyam Babu And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri V.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 25.12.2017, Case Crime No.868 of 2017, u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 307, 302 IPC, P.S. Meja, district Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that co-accused persons of the present case have earlier challenged the FIR of the present case by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.3424 of 2018 before this Court which was disposed of by coordinate Bench this Court on 13.2.2018 giving direction to the co-accused to surrender before the court concerned and obtain bail in pursuance of which the said co-accused appeared before the court below and has been granted bail.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing and vehemently refuted the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the impugned FIR discloses the cognizable offence.
The Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) 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 as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others (AIR 1992 SC 604) attended with further elaboration that observations and directions contained in Joginder Kumar's case (Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 contradict extension to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under article 226 and the same are intended to be observed in compliance by the Police, the breach whereof, it has been further elaborated, may entail action by way of departmental proceeding or action under the contempt of Court Act. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution as an alternative to anticipatory bail which is not invocable in the State of U.P. attended with further observation that what is not permissible to do directly cannot be done indirectly.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has not brought forth anything cogent or convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction operating on the police to investigate the case.
After having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR, we are not inclined to quash the FIR. The prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.
However, the court below while considering the bail application of the petitioners shall consider the fact that co-accused has already been granted bail by the competent court, if the petitioners move bail application before the court below.
With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 31.5.2018 Gaurav