Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24331 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vikash Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 24.06.2019 and for staying the arrest of the petitioners at Case Crime No. 233 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 313, 323, 342, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Panki, District- Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the respondent no.3 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing them. Petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner no.2 & 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the respondent no.3. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime and hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56)ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569, after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 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 FIR or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.
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 FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is provided that if the petitioner No.1- Vikas Kumar appear or surrender before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered by the courts below expeditiously, in accordance with law.
It is further directed that petitioner No.2 & 3 shall not be arrested in the aforesaid crime till the submission of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, subject to restraint that they shall cooperate with the investigation.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Ashok Gupta