The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR and restrain harassment. The petition relied on precedent requiring prima facie absence of cognizable offence for quashing, but the court found sufficient allegations to deny relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16276 of 2020
Petitioner :- Prabhakar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kameshwar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Babu Lal Ram,Samar Bahadur Saroj
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for State respondent and Shri Dinesh Kumar Pandey holding brief of Shri Samar Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned FIR dated 15.08.2020 lodged by respondent no.3 against the petitioner as Case Crime No.0093 of 2020, under Sections 494, 506, 354 (Ka), 471, 468, 467, 420, 323, 498-A, 313, 495 IPC, Police Station Kadaura, District Jalaun.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.2 not to harass the petitioner in pursuance of impugned FIR dated 15.08.2020 lodged by respondent no.3 against the petitioner as Case Crime No.0093 of 2020, under Sections 494, 506, 354 (Ka), 471, 468, 467, 420, 323, 498-A, 313, 495 IPC, Police Station Kadaura, District Jalaun.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has produced a copy of the order dated 22.10.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10263 of 2020 (Mukesh Singh Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), whereby the writ petition filed by the coaccused of the same first information report has been dismissed. The order dated 22.10.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10263 of 2020 is reproduced below;
"Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prabhash Pandey, 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 15.8.2020, registered as Case Crime No.93 of 2020, under Sections 494, 506, 354(Ka), 471, 468, 467, 420, 323, 498-A of I.P.C., Police Station Kadaura, District Jalaun.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is maternal uncle of co-accused Prabhakar Singh Parihar @ Shailendra Singh with whom the marriage of respondent no.3 was solemnized on 8.6.2019 through Sadi.com as per Hindu rituals and after marriage some dispute arose between the husband and wife, on account of which the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent no.3 against her in-laws including the petitioner levelling absolutely false and frivolous allegations against them. He further submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lekhpal in the year 2016 but he did not join on the said post and he is preparing for U.P. Public Service Commission competitive examination at Allahabad. The petitioner did not have any concern at the time of settlement of marriage of respondent no.3 with co-accused Prabhakar Singh. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. No offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and submitted that the F.I.R. discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner and there is serious allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. and the petitioner tried to outrage the modesty of respondent no.3.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. 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 F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.
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 F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to move anticipatory bail application, if so desire.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the oncerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing."
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has further produced a copy of the order dated 14.10.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10571 of 2020 (Kamlesh Kumari and another Vs. State of U.P. and two others), which was filed by another co-accused of the same FIR and the said writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn.
For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good reason for interference at the instance of main accused.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021 SFH
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Special Leave Petition to quash an First Information Report under Sections 494, 506, 354(Ka), 471, 468, 467, 420, 323, 498-A, 313, 495 IPC can be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prabhakar Singh
State Of U.P.
Respondent No.3
Respondent No.2
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
