Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Istiyak Khan And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 January, 2021
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Chand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13816 of 2020 Petitioner :- Mohd. Istiyak Khan And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava,learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, learned Brief Holder 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, Mohd. Istiyak Khan, Smt. Tarabegam and Neeraj Yadav alias Baba seeking quashing of the First Information Report of Case Crime No.458 of 2020, under Sections 406, 120-B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Bithoor, District Kanpur Nagar with a further prayer to stay of their arrest during the pendency of the investigation of the said case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation which has been levelled against the petitioner no.1 that he has taken Rs.5 lacs from the respondent no.3 for selling of a plot and the said amount was also transferred in the account of petitioner no.1, is absolutely false one. The petitioner no.2 is the wife petitioner no.1 and petitioner is friend of petitioner no.1 and they have no role to play in the present case but then too they have also been made accused in the present case. No offence is made out against the petitioners, hence, 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, 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.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Subhash Chand, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 11.1.2021 NS