Allahabad High Court
Pratendra Pal Singh Alias Bhoora And 5 ... 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. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18257 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pratendra Pal Singh Alias Bhoora And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Pratap Singh,Akhilesh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Sri Akhilesh Srivastava,learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Prabhash Pandey, 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 8.6.2018, registered as Case Crime No.323 of 2018, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Jalesar, District Etah.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with malafide intention. He further submitted that the FIR was lodged against four accused persons. The petitioner nos. 1 to 5 are not named in the FIR and one of the co-accused Deepak, who happens to be relative of respondent no.3 is said to have made confessional statement disclosing involvement of the present petitioners. The name of petitioner no.6 has come as son of Satendra in the FIR as in the FIR. He next argued that daughter of Satendra Pal was abducted by Bhanu, Deepak and Smt. Saroj Devi, for which search was made but she could not be traced. Thereafter, Anita wife of Satendra Pal moved an application on 11.6.2018 stating therein that she went to the police station but her report was not lodged. Later on, she moved application to the SSP concerned on 11.6.2018, on which the FIR was registered being Case Crime No.118 of 2018, under Section 366 I.P.C. He next argued that the named accused persons in the FIR lodged by Smt. Anita wife of Satendra Pal challenged the same by means of filing Crl.Misc. Writ Petition No.18953 of 2018 in which their arrest was stayed by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.7.2018 directing the kidnapped girl Km. Kunjan to be produced before the C.J.M. concerned within 20 days for recording recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as for her medical examination, copy of which is annexed at page-46 of the writ petition. All the accused persons of the said case, who obtained interim protection did not produce the kidnapped girl of Smt. Anita before the C.J.M. concerned . Thereafter, from the side of the petitioners, an FIR was lodged against Bhanu, Deepak and Smt. Saroj Devi. In the meantime, one Pappu Singh was kidnapped, in which four persons were named and the name of the petitioner nos. 1 to 5 has come into light on the saying of co-accused Deepak of the FIR lodged by Smt. Anita Devi, wife of Satendra Pal. He argued that there is no evidence against the petitioner no.1 to 5 and only on the basis of being close relative and worker of Satendra Pal Singh who is alleged to kidnapped the Pappu Singh along with the co-accused persons, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present.The allegation levelled against the petitioners is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. No offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence.
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.
Taking into account the fact that the victim who is said to have been abducted, thereafter murdered and thereafter his dead body was recovered and 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 NS