Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2429 (ALL)

Sanjay Mittal v. State of U. P.

2016-07-13

ALOK KUMAR MUKHERJEE, BHARAT BHUSHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 29.9.2014 registered at Case Crime No. 1516 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447 IPC, P.S. Quarsi, District Aligarh as well as the order dated 28.1.2016 passed by CJM, Aligarh in Case No. 1531 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 1516 of 2014 whereby proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the petitioner. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 4 has lodged an FIR on 29.9.2014 against the petitioner along with other co accused persons alleging therein that the possession of the property purchased by respondent no. 4 from co accused Smt Meen Devi on 1.2.2011 has not been given to him. The petitioner is alleged to be dealer of the property. Submission is that no criminal offence is committed by the petitioner and the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature. 4. To the contrary, learned AGA has contended that perusal of the FIR would disclose prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. There is no ground for interference with the impugned FIR. Moreover, the on the application of the concerned Investigating Officer, the court below has initiated proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. 5. 4. To the contrary, learned AGA has contended that perusal of the FIR would disclose prima facie cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. There is no ground for interference with the impugned FIR. Moreover, the on the application of the concerned Investigating Officer, the court below has initiated proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 7. 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. 8. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. However, considering the circumstances, the petitioner is advised to appear before the court below. In case the petitioner appears or surrenders before the court below and moves an application for bail on the day of the appearance or surrender, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (57) ALR 290, which has been approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) in letter and spirit.