Allahabad High Court
Ram Saran Kushwaha vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 July, 2019
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 44 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16080 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ram Saran Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Sri Prabhakar Chandel has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 3 which is taken on record.
Heard Sri R.K. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Prabhakar Chandel, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, Sri Irshad Hussain, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 23.4.2019 registered as case crime 286 of 2019 under sections 376, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, police station Kotwali Karvi Nagar, District Chitrakoot.
Though an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners under sections 376, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. but the same has also been lodged under section 3 (2) (V) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In view of the provisions under section 18 of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to a person committing an offence under the said Act. Hence the Court proceeds to hear the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was some dispute between the petitioner and one Atul Kumar Dwivedi with respect to some property for which a cheque has been given by the petitioner to him and when the deal could not be finalized, he asked the said cheque back, hence he in collusion with the respondent no. 3, who happens to be his maid lodged the present F.I.R. on the basis of application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. levelling false and frivolous allegations which is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence and submitted in the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner.
The Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) 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 as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others (AIR 1992 SC 604) attended with further elaboration that observations and directions contained in Joginder Kumar's case (Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 contradict extension to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under article 226 and the same are intended to be observed in compliance by the Police, the breach whereof, it has been further elaborated, may entail action by way of departmental proceeding or action under the contempt of Court Act. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution as an alternative to anticipatory bail which is not invocable in the State of U.P. attended with further observation that what is not permissible to do directly cannot be done indirectly.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has not brought forth anything cogent or convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction operating on the police to investigate the case.
Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and/therefore no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 11.7.2019 Shiraz