Allahabad High Court
Om Sharma @ Om Vashishth vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 May, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:88429-DB Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7924 of 2024 Petitioner :- Om Sharma @ Om Vashishth Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Om Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 13.2.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 85 of 2024, under Sections- 376,511,452,306,506 IPC,section 7/8 POCSO Act and section 67 of I.T. Act Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Rampur.
3.This court finds that earlier also petitioner has approached this court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3075 of 2024, which was dismissed by the order dated 22.3.2024 by Coordinate Bench of this court, leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail by the following order:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 13.2.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0085 of 2024, under Sections 376, 511, 452, 506, 306 I.P.C. & 67 of I.T. Act (Amendment) Act, 2000, P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against him are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed.
4. Learned A.G.A, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, which discloses cognizable offence. He has further submitted that truthfulness of allegations and establishment of guilt take place, when the investigation is done or trial proceeds. Probability, reliability or genuineness cannot be looked under Art.226 of the Constitution. The FIR can only be quashed in a writ jurisdiction, if the FIR does not discloses commission of offence and that too prior to framing of charges. As such it is submitted that no interfere is required in the matter.
5. The correctness of the allegations would have to be tested on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation as by insertion of notification No.1058/79-V-1-19-1 (Ka)-20-2018 dated 6th June 2019 and therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021 and the latest judgment in Criminal Appeal No.843 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10913 of 2023 (Directorate of Enforcement vs. Niraj Tyagi & ors) connected with Criminal Appeal Nos. 844 of 2024 and 845 of 2024, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/ bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
7. It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the same are left open for the petitioner to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law. "
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order of this court petitioner applied for anticipatory bail and same has been dismissed by the Sessions Court on 25.4.2024.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that once the relief was declined to the petitioner by this court regarding quashing of the impugned First Information Report , the second writ petition is not maintainable.
6. In view of the above facts, no orders can be passed in this petition.
7. The writ petition stands dismissed with the observation that petitioner may avail any other remedy available to him under law.
Order Date :- 16.5.2024 Atul kr. sri.
(Surendra Singh-I, J.) (Siddharth,J.)