Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21298 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3742 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Sufal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. The applicant herein has filed the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against the applicant arising out of Case No.24624/2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Sufal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.0124 of 2023 under Section 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Malawan, District Fatehpur pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Fatehpur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that though as per the FIR allegation is that with respect to furnishing of a bond certain amount was to be returned after the time spell so specified therein along with interest thereon however, when the opposite party no.2 approached the applicants for demanding the same, the threats were administered and valuables were also stolen. He further submits that the applicants are innocent as per the statement, sufficient amount has already been returned and no criminal offence is made out.

4. Learned State Law Officer on the other hand submits that the entire arguments so sought to be raised centers around factual aspects, he cannot be gone in to in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the case of M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 192 and the paragraph no. 23 culled out the following propositions of law which is enumerated hereinunder:-

"i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ''rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating off