0

Jurisdiction can quash a complaint, F.I.R or charge-sheet only in exceptional cases. : Allahabad High Court

The legal position on the question of quashing a complaint, FIR, or charge-sheet is well-established: the power to quash a complaint, FIR, or charge-sheet should be used sparingly and only in extraordinary circumstances. In most cases, the courts should refrain from interfering in criminal investigations. The FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. if the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, this was put up by Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Heera Lal Yadav versus State of U.P [MISC. BENCH No. – 13252 of 2021]

This order was passed when Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that the petitioner had previously challenged the impugned F.I.R. in this Court at Allahabad by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12605 of 2020: Heera Lal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, wherein, initially, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad, vide order dated 14.12.2020, restrained the respondents from taking any further action.

Further, The learned Senior Counsel sitting on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the contested F.I.R. was filed against eight people, including the petitioner. He argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the impugned F.I.R. because the entire selection/recruitment process was completed on the basis of a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Managing Committee/U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd. Lucknow on 07.07.2015, and the petitioner was not working in the office of U.P. Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lucknow from 20.10.2014 to 22.10.2014.

Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, argued that interim protection was granted to co-accused, namely Rabi Kant Singh, Ram Jatan Yadav, Santosh Kumar, and Rakesh Kumar Mishra, solely on the basis of an interim order dated 14.12.2020, which was granted in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12605 of 2020, which was subsequently quashed.

Following that, because the impugned F.I.R. had been registered at police station S.I.T., Lucknow, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad, by order dated 24.03.2021, dismissed the writ petition and granted the writ petitioner the liberty to approach the appropriate forum/Court if he so desired. He argued that, in dismissing the writ petition filed by the current writ petition, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad did not extend or direct to continue the interim order dated 14.12.2020, implying that, once the writ petition is dismissed, the interim order dated 14.12.2020 becomes redundant as it merges with the final order.

The court held at the same time, the court has the authority to quash the FIR/complaint if it sees fit, taking into account the quashing parameters and the self-restraint imposed by law, particularly the parameters put out by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra).

Considering the aforementioned law and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner call for determination on questions of fact that can be adequately discerned either through proper investigation or by the trial court and even the sua sponte. At this point, a review of the record reveals, prima facie, offences, and there appears to be adequate grounds for further investigation in the case.

In light of the foregoing, and in light of the charges stated in the FIR and the evidence presented, it cannot be said that no prima facie case has been established against the petitioner; rather, there appear to be sufficient grounds for further investigation. As a result, we see no reason to overturn the challenged F.I.R. 

As a result, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

Click here to read the full judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat