Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 874 (ALL)

Natthu v. State of U. P. and Others

2013-03-18

SURENDRA KUMAR, VINOD PRASAD

body2013
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J. Hon'ble Surendra Kumar,J. The sole petitioner Nathu has approached us under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 27.12.2012 of Crime No. 633 of 2012, P.S. Kuwargaon District Budaon, under section 135 Electricity Act vide Annexure No.1 to this petition. An ancillary prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondent no.2, Station House Officer, P.S. Kuwargaon, District Budaun not to arrest the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid First Information Report pendente lite investigation into that crime. We have heard Sri A.P. Tewari and Sri R.S. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner at a great length and have gone through the First Information Report vide Annexure No. 1 to the petition and also heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the Electricity Department. A bare reading of the F.I.R. indicates that the petitioner was indulging into the electricity theft. He wants the F.I.R. to be quashed on his defence plea that the Electricity Department Personnels were hostile to him. The defence of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage. In respect of quashing of F.I.R. the law is too well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court. Unless and until no cognizable offence is disclosed not requiring investigation into the crime, no F.I.R. duly registered in exercise of legal power by law enforcing agencies can be quashed. Since we find that the impugned F.I.R. discloses cognizable offence requiring investigation we refrain from quashing it by issuance of writ of certiorari and that prayer therefore stands rejected. Since, we have rejected the prayer for quashing of F.I.R., we do not find any viable reason to interfere with the police power of arrest by issuance of writ of mandamus for that purpose. The aforesaid prayer therefore also stands rejected. After the aforementioned order was passed learned counsel for the petitioner impressed upon us to make some direction regarding disposal of bail prayer of the appellant. Looking to the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that both the Courts below be directed to consider and dispose of bail prayer of appellant on the same day on which it is moved, if possible, after hearing the public prosecutor and counsel for the Electricity Department. Looking to the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that both the Courts below be directed to consider and dispose of bail prayer of appellant on the same day on which it is moved, if possible, after hearing the public prosecutor and counsel for the Electricity Department. We therefore direct both the Courts below as aforesaid. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. _____________