Allahabad High Court
Asif @ Asif Jahangir And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 16 December, 2019
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 48 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25695 of 2019 Petitioner :- Asif @ Asif Jahangir And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amit Sinha, learned counsel for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of FIR dated 02.12.2019 in respect of Crime No. 349 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 354, 354(D), 504, 506 of I.P.C. and 67 of Information Technology Act, P.S. Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Nagar.
In the F.I.R. lodged by complainant Saba Khan on 02.12.2019, it has been alleged that petitioner no.1 Asif, who is a shop keeper, used to tease her; sent different messages and likewise, he used to call her from his cell phone. When she has refused to marry him, petitioner No.1 had given threat for throwing acid on her. In respect of other petitioners, allegations have been made that they also used to help petitioner No.1 in committing the said offence. It has been further alleged that on 02.12.2019, petitioner No.1 stopped the complainant and misbehaved with her; caught hold her and abused her in filthy language.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that totally a false case has been set up by the complainant, who used to take food from the shop of petitioner No.1 for supplying the same to other persons. She had also taken Rs.40,000/- from him. As she did not want to return the said amount, a false report has been lodged. Counsel for the petitioners has given a reference of report dated 03.10.2019, lodged by petitioner No.1.
Opposing this petition, it has been argued by the State counsel that considering the contents of the F.I.R., prima facie, offence as alleged has been made out against the petitioners and the F.I.R. cannot be quashed. He submits that the petitioners may have a good defence, but the same cannot be considered at this stage.
We have heard the parties.
The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners relate to the disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
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 a bare perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, no ground exists for quashing the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, the petitioners, if so advised, can file an appropriate application seeking anticipatory bail before the competent court. Needless to state that in the eventuality of filing any such application, the competent court shall consider the same in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made by this Court.
Order Date :- 16.12.2019 nethra