Court No. - 20 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 6728 of 2010 Petitioner :- Munna @ Baba, 7 Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P.,Thru. Prin. Secy.,Home & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J.
Hon’ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and perused the
F.I.R.
Under challenge is FIR relating to Case Crime No.249 of 2010, under
Sections 323, 352, 364, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kakori, District
Lucknow.
Be that as it may, on the facts, this Court is not satisfied that any case has
been made out either to quash the F.I.R. or to grant stay of the arrest in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the
F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per
allegation of the First Information Report the son of the complainant had gone
to work at the Dhaba of the petitioner no.1, Munna alias Baba who is running
a Tea stall. Thereafter the complainant went to the Dhaba of the petitioner to
inquire about his son, there he knew that his son was beaten by the petitioner
no.1 and petitioner no.2 who is the son of petitioner no.1. Learned counsel for
the petitioners submits that if the allegations made in the First Information
Report are taken to be true on the face value even then no offence under
Section 364 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners and there is no evidence
against the accused that they had kidnapped the son of the complainant and
killed him. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is
that there is no evidence against the accused in support of the offence under
Section 364 I.P.C. The petitioner no.1 is aged about 72 years he cannot be
expected to have kidnapped and murdered the son of the complainant. The
accused-petitioners, therefore, deserve for interim protection during
investigation.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the petition and submitted that as per his instructions
the case is under investigation, the Investigating Officer has found the
evidence against the accused.
We have gone through the contents of FIR which disclose commission of
cognizable offence, as such, the same cannot be quashed.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.7.2010
PAL