Allahabad High Court
Bhanupratap @ Rahul And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 8 January, 2021
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Chand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 30 of 2021 Petitioner :- Bhanupratap @ Rahul And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Manju Thakur, learned AGA 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, Bhanupratap @ Rahul and Lakhan Singh for quashing of the First Information Report dated 12.12.2020 in Case Crime No. 0203 of 2020, under Sections 376, 511, 302, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(2),5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Madavara, District Lalitpur with a further prayer to stay their arrest during the pendency of the investigation of the said case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the husband of the deceased, namely, Munna Lal, has been arrayed as respondent no.4, informed the concerned police station about the incident wherein G.D. entry was made that the death of the deceased was accidental due to floor mill and after one month of the incident impugned FIR has been lodged on the basis of order passed on the application under Section 15(3) Cr.P.C. against the petitioners, who are the father and son.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the First Information Report and argued that as per the allegations made in the impugned FIR, the petitioner no.1 has tried to outraged the modesty of the deceased and when she resisted, she was done to death by both the petitioners, who are son and father.
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 computed 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.
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 :- 8.1.2021 Prajapati