Allahabad High Court
Samarjeet Singh @ Babbu Singh & Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 14 December, 2020
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 2 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 24452 of 2020 Petitioner :- Samarjeet Singh @ Babbu Singh & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and 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, Samarjeet Singh @ Babbu Singh, Manish Nirmal, Kailash Vishwakarma and Ghanshyam Vishwakarma, seeking quashing of the First Information Report of Case Crime No.257 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 336, 332, 353, 435, 504, 506, 427 IPC and 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station Bhadokhar, District Raibareli with a further prayer to stay the arrest during the pendency of the investigation of the said case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is a case of mob lynching. The FIR has been lodged against 22 persons including the petitioner. The prosecution has assigned only general allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent and is not involved in the instant case. The FIR has been lodged on the basis of suspicious whereas the petitioner has no concerned. He has been falsely implicated in the present case without there being any cogent evidence against him, hence the impugned 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 petitioner, 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, 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 along with 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.
Order Date :- 14.12.2020
akverma
(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)