Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 607 (ALL)

Govind Singh v. State of U. P.

2017-02-21

KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH, RAMESH SINHA

body2017
JUDGMENT Heard Sri S.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 16.9.2016 registered as case crime 303 of 2016 under sections 376, 506 I.P.C., police station Sukhpura, District Ballia. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix has falsely deposed against him under the influence of her family members as there was some relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix before her marriage, hence the present F.I.R. be quashed. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing and submitted that the victim is a married lady and the petitioner is harassing her on phone and torturing her as is evident from her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. 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. 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. 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. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.