HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 998 of 2020
Petitioner :- Jyoti Chetty And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Nandan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon’ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Hon’ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Sri Rohit Nandan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent concerned, not to arrest the petitioner, with a further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 9.1.2020 in Case Crime No.39 of 2020, under Section 377, 120-B IPC 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. – Sahibabad, Distirict – Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case, allegations levelled against them are false and fabricated. The FIR was lodged on the instance of rival foundation where the victims were transferred. He further submits that the victims have never made any complaint when they were residing with the foundation of the petitioners, and therefore, the entire story, as mentioned in the FIR is false and concocted. He lastly prayed that FIR be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as well as submissions made by the petitioner and has submitted that alleged offence is heinous in nature and any interference at this stage, by this Court, would be contrary to the various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court. He has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another reported in 2005 (1) SCC 122.
We have considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the record. It is well settled that the High Court could not assume the role of trial court and embark upon an inquiry at the stage of lodging of FIR.
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.
In the said judgment, the Full Bench has held that “thus, the Court is not permitted to consider/examine the reliability/genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, at the stage of considering a case for quashing criminal proceedings.”
From the perusal of the FIR, it is evident that it has been alleged that the victim was subjected to offence under Section 377 IPC and he was able to reveal the same when he was transferred to another foundation, and as such, 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 petitioner.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.1.2020
Rishabh
