Point of Law : It is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as an alternative to anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT :

1. On account of prevailing Covid-19 pandemic this case has been taken up through video conferencing.

2. Heard Sri Sanjay Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. Roodi Siddiqui, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the First Information Report dated 27.12.2021 and staying the arrest of the petitioners in FIR/Case Crime No. 680 of 2021, under Sections 504, 506 & 307 IPC, Police Station Gola, District Kheri.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners, has contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case with malafide intention. It is contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. No offence is made out against the petitioners and as such the First Information Report is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondent has submitted that from a perusal of the allegations made in the impugned First Information Report, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners and as such the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

6. A Full Bench of this court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (56) ACC 433 reiterated the view expressed by an the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 Cr.L.J. 569 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 First Information Report or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case as laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of cases various decisions including State of Haryana v. BhajanLal and others, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as an alternative to anticipatory bail.

7. On a perusal of the allegations made in the First Information Report, this Court is of the view that the allegations made therein do disclose commission of cognizable offence by the petitioners. There is nothing on record from where it can be discerned that there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate the case. In the circumstances, no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to the other remedy, if any, available to them under law.