Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2290 (ALL)

Kalpnath and Anr. v. State of U. P. and Others

2011-09-28

KRISHNA MURARI, S.RAFAT ALAM

body2011
Krishna Murari, J.;- Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the bona-fide purchaser of the land in dispute and they have not committed any forgery. He further submitted that the first information report has been lodged just to harass the petitioners. 2. On the other hand, Sri Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the informant (respondent no. 4) and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents opposed the prayer. 3. Having considered the submission made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that since the allegations made in the impugned FIR prima-facie disclose commission of cognizable offence, therefore, there appears to be no reason to quash the same especially, when the investigation is still going on. The contention made on behalf of the petitioners is by way of defence and therefore, the same cannot be gone into at this stage for the purpose of quashing the FIR. 4. In the case of M.L. Bhatt v. M.K. Pandita & others, JT 2002 (3) SC 89 the Apex Court has held that the defence version of the named accused cannot be looked into and decided at this stage. However, keeping in view the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. & others, 1994 Vol. 4 SCC page 260 wherein their Lordships have held that no arrest should be made unless the investigating agency finds credible evidence collected during the investigation showing the involvement of the accused person or the investigation cannot be completed without effecting the arrest, in that eventuality only the arrest is to be undertaken. Therefore, normally, merely on the allegation without there being any evidence showing involvement of the accused, the recourse of arrest is not to be undertaken. 5. We are, therefore, of the view that in the facts and circumstances and also having regard to the view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar (Supra), it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at this stage without expressing any opinion on merits in respect of the allegations made, with the directions that the investigation of the case crime no. 747 of 2011 under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Buxa, District Jaunpur shall continue and be concluded expeditiously. 747 of 2011 under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Buxa, District Jaunpur shall continue and be concluded expeditiously. However, the petitioners shall not be arrested unless some credible evidence during the investigation is collected showing their involvement provided they cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer as and when called upon. 6. It goes without saying that in the event the petitioners do not cooperate with the investigation the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and it would be open to the investigating officer to take steps in accordance with law. 7. With the above order, the writ petition stands disposed of finally.