Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2141 (ALL)

ANIL KUMAR TRIPATHI v. ANIL KUMAR TRIPATHI

2014-07-19

AMAR SARAN, ANURAG KUMAR

body2014
Amar Saran and Anurag Kumar, JJ. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of FIR in Case Crime No. 422 of 2011, under sections 420, 467, 468 IPC, PS George Town, district Allahabad, lodged by Shri Satish Kumar Paliwal, Inspector, CBCID, Agra. 2. The allegations in the FIR were that one Amiteshwar Kumar Singh wrote the Combined Defence Service Examination-II, 2007. He had purchased the form from the petitioner's shop Shubham Book Depot, Bairana, Allahabad and after filling up the same, he had sent it to the UPSC, New Delhi. The petitioner had given UPSC's acknowledgment receipt to Amiteshwar Kumar Singh, but as he did get an Admit Card for appearing in the examination, he approached the Centre which allowed him to appear in the examination on the basis of the receipt and on his executing a personal bond. The UPSC made a search for Amiteshwar's form, but it was not said to be received at its postal counter at Dhaulpur House, New Delhi. Even the receipt given by Amiteshwar for appearing in the examination did not have a genuine seal of the UPSC postal counter and the endorsement appeared to have been made by a forged seal. After making enquiries the informant, who was an Inspector of the CBCID has lodged the report on 2.11.2011. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no person could be allowed to appear in the Combined Defence Services Examination merely on the basis of a receipt and on executing a personal bond. Also the FIR was lodged with undue delay after four years of the alleged incident. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the contentions of the petitioner. 5. There was no reason for the complainant, who is an Inspector of the CBCID to have cooked up the story that Amiteshwar was allowed to write the examination on the basis of a receipt and on executing a personal bond. 6. Moreover, the prosecution allegations mentioned in the FIR cannot be refuted merely on the basis of the submissions of the Counsel that no such practice is being followed. 7. All these are matters for investigation and trial and the writ Court cannot arrive at any conclusion about the same. 8. 6. Moreover, the prosecution allegations mentioned in the FIR cannot be refuted merely on the basis of the submissions of the Counsel that no such practice is being followed. 7. All these are matters for investigation and trial and the writ Court cannot arrive at any conclusion about the same. 8. Likewise the delay may have resulted because the FIR appears to have been lodged after enquiry that had been made and it was not lodged by Amiteshwar Kumar Singh. 9. 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 ( 40) ACC 75 after considering the various decisions of the Apex Court including State of Haryana v. 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. 10. From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioner. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein-above were only for the purpose of meeting the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the bail Court and the trial Court shall decide the case on its intrinsic merits without being influenced by the observations made above.