Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. P. SINGH, GIRIDHAR MALAVIYA
JAGDISH PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 28041 Of 1990
Decided On : 11/29/1990
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - INVESTIGATION - QUASHING OF FIR - COURT'S JURISDICTION - OFFENCE DISCLOSED IN FIR - COURT CANNOT INTERFERE WITH POLICE INVESTIGATION - EXCEPTIONS - HARASSMENT OF INNOCENT PERSONS - REMEDIES AVAILABLE - BAIL - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - POWER OF HIGH COURT TO STAY ARREST - LIMITED TO CASES WHERE FIR DOES NOT DISCLOSE ANY OFFENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to quash an FIR alleging theft and robbery, claiming that a compromise had been reached with the complainant and that the FIR only implicated one of the petitioners. The police, relying on the complainant's statement implicating multiple petitioners, opposed the quashing of the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the FIR disclosed an offence and that the police had the statutory right to investigate the matter. The Court noted that the compromise did not absolve the petitioners from criminal liability and that the police were not bound by the compromise. The Court also held that it could not interfere with the police investigation at this stage and that the petitioners could seek remedies such as bail or anticipatory bail if they felt they were being harassed.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court can interfere with the police investigation when the FIR discloses an offence? 2. Whether the compromise between the complainant and one of the petitioners absolved the other petitioners from criminal liability? 3. Whether the Court can quash the FIR against some petitioners while allowing the investigation to continue against others?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that it cannot interfere with the police investigation when the FIR discloses an offence. The Court noted that the police have the statutory right to investigate cognizable offences and that the Court should not interfere with this right unless there is a clear case of mala fide or harassment. 2. The Court held that the compromise between the complainant and one of the petitioners did not absolve the other petitioners from criminal liability. The Court noted that the compromise was a private arrangement between the parties and that it did not have the effect of extinguishing the criminal liability of the other petitioners. 3. The Court held that it cannot quash the FIR against some petitioners while allowing the investigation to continue against others. The Court noted that the FIR is a single document and that it cannot be split into parts. If the FIR discloses an offence, the police must investigate the matter against all the accused persons named in the FIR.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and held that the petitioners had failed to make out a case for interference by the Court.
( 1 ) JAGDISH Prasad and seven others have filed this petition with the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 22-9-90 giving rise to crime No. 435 of 1990 u/ss. 457 and 380, IPC Police Station Shahgan, District Agra. An application has been simultaneously made seeking stay of the arrest of the applicants in the said crime.
( 2 ) THE allegation in the FIR lodged by one Smt. Chameli Devi on 22-9-90 was that on the night between 16/ 17/04/1990 her relations had stolen Rs. 36000. 00, two pairs of silver Payal weighing 18 Tola and a golden ring weighing 1 Tola after breaking open the lock of her box. It was mentioned in the FIR that the details of this incident had been mentioned in a report given by her in the office of the Dy. S. P. Agra on 27-7-90 requesting the police to get the case registered and to take necessary action. Consequently the informant, while annexing the copy of the said report dated 27-7-90 had requested the police to take necessary action in the matter. This report is Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
( 3 ) IN the petition the petitioners have given the pedigree, according to which the first informant Smt. Chameli Devi was aunt (Bua) of the father of the petitioner No. 4 Dharmendra Nath. The rest of the petitioners are admittedly the relations of Dharmendra Nath. It is not disputed that Smt. Chameli Devi had come and stayed with Smt. Jai Devi at 10-/131-A Kolihai, P. S. Shahganj, District Agra when she complained about the loss of her ornaments and cash etc. Admittedly the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 are living in one and the same house i. e. house No. 10-131-A, Kolihai, P. S. Shahganj, District Agra. It is further asserted in the petition that on her complaint some persons intervened in the matter. Thereafter it was agreed that the family members of the petitioners would pay the compensation of Rs. 20,000. 00 to Smt. Chameli Devi. Consequently it is alleged that a Panchnama was prepared on 16-5-90 evidencing the compromise. This compromise (Panchanama) which was entered in between Smt. Chameli Devi and Ravendra Nath alias Teepu son of Gangeshwar Nath Saxena, second party in the Panchanama, who was the brother of Dharmendra Nath, petitioner No. 4, is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of this Panchnama clearly mentioned that the second party on 16-4-90 had taken away Rs. 36000. 00, two pairs of silver Payal and a golden ring and as the second party had paid back Rs. 12,000. 00 and had agreed to pay Rs. 8,000. 00 within a year, hence no action would be taken by either party in respect of the said incident in future and even if some action was taken, the same would be treated to be illegal.
( 4 ) IT appears that when the case was registered on the basis of the FIR, Annexure-2, the police investigated the matter, interrogated the first informant and on the basis of the statement of the first informant in which she alleged that although she had not seen any person taking away her belongings, yet she suspected that Dharmendra Nath, Ravendra Nath, Tapeshwar Nath etc. had conspired and robbed of her belongings, the police wanted to apprehend the petitioners. In this back ground the petitioners have come to this court with the prayer for quashing of the First information report against the petitioners.
( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the compromise itself clearly mentions that only Ravindra Nath had taken the belongings of the first informant, hence the first information report should be quashed as against the present petitioners, inasmuch as neither the first information report nor the compromise (Panchnama) made out any case against the rest of the petitioners.
( 6 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Additional Govt. Advocate on this issue at the stage of admission of this petition itself.
( 7 ) THE learned Addl. Govt. Advocate relied upon a seven Judges Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
