Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Sri Surendra Singh, learned Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the private respondent no.4 today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Surendra Singh, learned counsel for the private respondent no.4, Sri S.P. Singh, 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, Smt. Rampati, Sangam & Guddan, seeking quashing of the First Information Report, registered as F.I.R. No.0008 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 364 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Huzurpur, District Bahraich with a further prayer to stay of their 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 mother-in-law, petitioner no.2 is father-in-law and petitioner no.3 is husband of the victim Suneeta respectively as the marriage between the petitioner no.3 and daughter of respondent no.4 was solemnized four years ago. He further argued that daughter of private respondent no.4 was taken by the private respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 who are relative of the victim Suneeta and thereafter petitioner no.3 has given an application to the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich on 8.1.2021 for registration of the F.I.R. against private respondent nos.4 to 7 and also sent the said application to the authority and immediately thereafter the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the private respondent no.4 against the petitioner no.3 including the petitioner nos.1 and 2 who are parents of petitioner no.1 levelling absolutely false, concocted, vague and sweeping allegations against them for the alleged offence in question. 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 counsel for the private respondent no.4 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and argued that the victim has not yet been recovered and further 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.
(Rajeev Singh,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 4.2.2021 NS