The court affirms that the police must investigate cognizable offences and the quashing of FIR should be exercised cautiously, only in rare cases.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 173(2), 482 - Quashing FIR - The court emphasizes that police have the duty to investigate cognizable offences - FIR against the accused-petitioners retains cogency despite alleged delay in filing - Courts to exercise caution in quashing criminal proceedings; such action must be limited to rarest of rare cases. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 16)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - The court will not interfere with ongoing investigations unless no cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR - Retaliation claims do not warrant quashing unless evident, stressing the gravity of allegations. (Paras 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered under multiple sections, including serious charges of atrocities and unlawful conversion. The victim alleged prolonged exploitation and retaliation upon her termination, leading to a delayed FIR filing. Police investigation status was still pending.

Findings of Court:
The court determined the necessity of thorough investigation due to the serious nature of the allegations while refraining from quashing the FIR. It ordered the petitioners to surrender and apply for bail, ensuring a proper investigative process.

Issues: The core issue was whether the FIR warranted quashing due to alleged mala fides and the timing of its filing, as well as the propriety of preventing police investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the police possess the right to investigate, and the quashing of FIR should occur only in exceptional circumstances, ensuring that the judicial process does not obstruct ongoing investigations. Delays in reporting alone do not justify dismissal of serious allegations.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. court's analysis and conclusion regarding fir and investigation (Para 1 , 13 , 17)
2. prayer for quashing fir and direction against arrest (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
3. background of petitioners and allegations of exploitation (Para 6 , 9 , 11)
4. contentions regarding the delay and motive behind fir (Para 7 , 8)
5. judicial scrutiny and parameters for quashing fir (Para 10 , 12 , 14)
6. court's stance on investigation and necessity for bail (Para 15 , 16)
7. conclusion and directive on fir and investigation. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Anuj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.K. Mishra, learned Advocate General assisted by Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate Geneal, Sri A.K. Sand, Government Advocate and Sri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and perused the records.

2. The instant writ petition is being filed by the seven petitioners, namely: (i) Most Rev. Prof. Rajendra Bihari Lal, (ii) Smt. Rekha Patel, (iii) Prof. Ramakant Dubey, (iv) Sri Vinod Bihari Lal, (v) Prof. Smt. Ranu Prasad, (vi) Rev. David Philiphs and (vii) Sri Sunil Kumar John. All the petitioners are jointly invoking the extra ordinary powers of this court enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer:

(II) Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to arrest the petitioners in case crime no. 0305 of 2023, under Sections 3 28 , 376D, 365, 506 IPC, Section 3 /5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and section 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, Police Station-Bewar, District- Hamirpur.

(III) Issue a writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(IV) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.”

3. Thus from the aforesaid, it is clear that a writ of certiorari was prayed for quashing of the FIR dated 04.11.2023 having case crime no. 305 of 2023, P.S. Bewar, District Hamirpur and also writ of mandamus as an ancillary writ seeking a direction from this Court to the respondent authorities not to arrest the petitioner named above pursuant to the above case crime at P.S. Bewar, Hamirpur.

4. Coming to the Factual Aspect of the issue, it has been contended that though the FIR was registered way back on 04.11.2023 at police station Bewar, Hamirpur but the investigation yet to see the final day and the investigating officer is yet to file his report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.

5. The respondent no. 4 is the informant as well as victim of the case. After reading the contents of the FIR, it has clearly been culled out that the victim has suffered lots of atrocities mental as well as physical by the hands of petitioners-accused. There was a yawing gap between the financial, social status of the accused-petitioners vis-a-vis the respondent no. 4 and as such she was subjected to mental and physical atrocities by the petitioners. Every sentence of the FIR is a sad saga of the atrocities faced by the respondent no. 4/victim during this period and she was not permitted to open her mouth as the accused-petitioners are head and shoulders above in all the aspect of the life. Any how after mustering much of the courage, she has succeeded in lodging the present FIR on 04.11.2023 at police station Bewar, District Hamirpur.

6. As mentioned above, the Petitioner No. 1 is the Vice Chancellor of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (SHUATS), Deemed University Naini, District Prayagraj; Petitioner No. 2 Rekha Patel is an Of