Court No. - 49

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17730

of 2020

Petitioner :- Nitesh And 3 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

Petitioners have filed this petition on 10.11.2020

challenging the investigating authority from investigating

Case Crime No.203 of 2020 lodged by private respondent

No.3.

At the outset, we had conveyed to the counsel that as there

are certain disputed question of facts, we are not inclined

to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

A writ of certiorari is not maintainble against the police

authorities, it is maintable against the Court or Tribunal

which is interferer to the High Court.

The following prayers are prayed for in the writ petition:

"(i) issue a writ order or direction in nature of certiorari for

quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 6.11.2020 registered as Case

Crime No.203 of 2020, u/s-498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P.

Act, Police Station Chandvak, District Jaunpur.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus

commanding the respondents to not to arrest the petitioners in Case

Crime No.203 of 2020, u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P.

Act, Police Station Chandvak, District Jaunpur.

(iii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

We cannot grant that the petitioners should not be arrested,

if they want them should not be arrested. They may file

anticipatory bail before the competent Court of

jurisdiction.

The First Information Report prima facie discloses an

offence committed by the petitioners and, therefore, also

this Court would be loath in interfering with investigation

where quantours of under Article 226 of the Constitution

as stated by the Supreme Court in (2017) 2 SCC 779

(State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and

others) wherein it has been held that the court should

exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India very seldomly and only if no case is made out or if

the court feels that the allegations is of false implication.

Inherent powers for quashment cannot be extended in

matters which prima facie go to show that offence has

been committed, would not permit us to interfere in the

investigation and or grant any prayer.

The petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 13.1.2021

A.N. Mishra