Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16450 of 2019
Petitioner :- Tabasum And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akash Khare Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Sri Hari Om Khare, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.3 today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hari Om Khare, learned counsel for respondent no.3, Sri Irshad Hussain, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 11.5.2019, registered as Case Crime No.465 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 147, 323, 307, 377, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Loni, District Ghaziabad.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that a writ petition being Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.13989 of 2019 has already been preferred by petitioner nos.2 to 4 which has been dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.5.2019, copy of which has been produced and the same is taken on record. He prays that he may be allowed to withdraw the present petition with respect to petitioner nos. 2 to 4.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with respect to petitioner nos.2 to 4 without any further liberty.
So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, the present writ petition has been filed for the first time. He further submits that petitioner no.1 has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive.It is a case of no injury as the victim has examined herself in any hospital regarding her injuries, the said fact has been mentioned in paragraph no.6 of the writ petition. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. No offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, FIR is liable to quashed.
Learned counsel for respondent no.3 as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence and that the writ petition filed on behalf of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 has already been dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.5.2009.
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 petitioner 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.
Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and/therefore no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Vivek Varma,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 13.6.2019/NS