Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 466 (ALL)

Ramkumar v. State Of U. P.

2020-02-11

B.AMIT STHALEKAR, RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure-1), registered as Case Crime No. 22 of 2020, under Sections 302, 120-B of I.P.C., P.S.Fatehabad, District Agra with a further prayer, not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the first information report. 3. The F.I.R. dated 21.7.2019 was lodged at 11-25 hours at the police station Fatehabad by the brother of the deceased. According to the F.I.R. version there was a dispute between wife and husband upon which the wife started to live with her parents. On the date of incident, the deceased had gone to the house of his in-laws and after coming back to his house in the night he committed suicide by tying his wife's dhoti around the neck and hanging from the ceiling fan. In the morning when he did not get up, the door was opened and his body was found hanging from the ceiling fan, which was brought down with the help of the womenfolk of the family and he was rushed to R.S. Hospital, Fatehabad for treatment and from there to G.R. Hospital, Agra, where he was declared dead. The post mortem of the deceased was done on 01.07.2019, in which the cause of death opined by the doctor as "Died due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging". 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are innocent persons and the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged under the orders passed by the court below on the application of the informant under Section 156 Cr.P.C. The present F.I.R. has been lodged to harass the petitioners and is a counter blast of the case lodged by the petitioners against the informant. Hence the FIR deserves to be quashed. 5. Per contra learned A.G.A contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioners 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. The petitioners 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. 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 petitioners appear or surrender before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, their prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously, in accordance with law.