Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1213 (ALL)

Sanjay Kumar v. State of U. P.

2016-04-04

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, SHASHI KANT

body2016
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 01.02.2016, registered as Case Crime No. 48 of 2016, under Sections 394, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station - Harduaganj, District ? Aligarh. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that impugned First Information Report has been lodged by respondent no. 4, in order to put pressure on petitioners who are police personnels to exonerate his son Prashant, who is suspected accused in the theft of mobile phone of one Kamal Singh, who had lodged a complaint in this regard before the Station House Officer, Police Station - Harduaganj, District - Aligarh on 31.01.2016 (annexure no. 2 to the writ petition) and the matter has been entrusted to the petitioners for enquiring into the allegations made in the complaint. 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned FIR, no evidence whatsoever is forthcoming even prima facie indicating the complicity of petitioners in the offence in question and therefore, the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra learned AGA submitted that from perusal of impugned FIR and on the basis of the allegations made therein it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. As far as submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that impugned FIR is liable to be quashed on the ground of lack of credible evidence in support of allegations made in the FIR is concerned, the same is absolutely misconceived and the impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed on the aforesaid ground as the Investigating Officer will collect evidence during the course of investigation. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record including the impugned FIR, we are not inclined to quash the same. 7. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record including the impugned FIR, we are not inclined to quash the same. 7. However, considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, allegations made in the impugned FIR, the provisions of section 157 Cr.P.C. and the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Versus State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J., 1981, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the credible evidence is collected by the Investigating Officer, during pendency of the investigation. With the above direction this writ petition is finally disposed of.