Court No. - 20 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 7745 of 2010 Petitioner :- Chandra Mani Kant Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P., Thru. Secretary, Home & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Bireshwar Nath,Prem Singh Respondent Counsel :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.
Hon’ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. as well as
perused the documents available on record.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
by the petitioner Chandra Mani Kant Singh for issuing a writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 31.7.2010, lodged at Case
Crime No. 1360 of 2010, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 212 I.P.C.,
Police Station Kotwali Bhinga, District Shrawasti and also for direction to the
opposite parties not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the said impugned
F.I.R.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per version
of the F.I.R., the only allegation against the petitioner is that the accused who
had taken shelter in the house of the petitioner, were said to have caused
injuries to the complainant-opposite party No.3 and they after causing injuries
to him again returned back to the house of petitioner. The complainant-
opposite party No.3 has not specifically assigned any role to the petitioner that
he himself had taken part in the said marpeet. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the complainant-opposite party No.3 is notorious as
well as land grabber while the petitioner was member of Legislaltive
Assembly, U.P. He had forwarded the complaints to the Director General,
U.P., Lucknow made against the complainant-opposite party No.3. The
complainant had forcibly grabbed the house of one Sanjai Kumar Jaiswal who
had lodged the F.I.R. The petitioner being local leader used to oppose the
complainant-opposite party No.3. He, therefore, with the false allegations has
implicated the petitioner too in this case while as per allegations of the F.I.R.,
no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. At the
most, only offence under Section 212 I.P.C. is made out against him. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that the injuries sustained by the
injured were simple in nature. It was, therefore, hardly a case under Section
323 I.P.C. and not under Section 307 I.P.C. The petitioner, therefore, deserves
for interim protection during the course of investigation.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the petition.
We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned A.G.A. as well as gone through the contents of the F.I.R. which
disclose the commission of cognizable offence and as such, it cannot be
quashed. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
However, keeping in view the facts of the case as well as the allegations of
the complainant against the petitioner, it is provided that in case the petitioner
appears before the court below and moves any bail application, his bail
application will be disposed of by the courts below expeditiously, preferably
on the same day.
Order Date :- 11.8.2010
Sanjay