Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 464 (ALL)

Jahid v. State of U. P.

2020-02-11

B.AMIT STHALEKAR, RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR dated 13.01.2010, registered as Case Crime No. 0018 of 2020, under Sections 376D, 323, 506, 392 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Jawan, district Aligarh (annexure-1 to the writ petition) with a further prayer, not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the F.I.R. 3. The allegations in the F.I.R. lodged at 23-05 hours on 13.01.2020 at P.S. Jawan, district Aligarh, are that the informant, respondent-4, works as a labourer to earn her livelihood. Taking advantage of her circumstances, Jahid and Aftar developed illicit relations with her and also tried to proselytize her to convert her into the faith of Islam to which she did not agree. On the date of incident while she was cutting Bindal crop, the petitioner came from behind and dropped her on the ground and along with co-accused Aftar tried to commit rape upon her but they failed. When the informant did not agree to the wishes of the accused, they threatened and abused her by caste based annotations due to which F.I.R. has been lodged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the F.I.R. was lodged only on the ground of old enmity and to implicate petitioner in a false case. 5. Per contra learned A.G.A contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations. 6. The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56)ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569, after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 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 FIR or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case. 7. From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. 7. 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 petitioners. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 9. However, it is provided that if the petitioner appears or surrenders before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and applies for bail in the aforesaid case, his prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously, in accordance with law.