Blog

The Code has obviously tried to make itself exhaustive and complete in every respect, and it has generally succeeded in this attempt. The case was held by the High court of Allahabad through the learned bench by single bench: Hon’ble Rajeev Singh, J.J.In the matter of Ishwar Singhal @ Tinu & others Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko & Others  [U/S 482/378/407 No. – 1979 of 2020 ] of 2021 dealth with an issue mentioned above.

Learned A.G.A. raised a preliminary objection that in the present case, First Information Report and its consequential proceedings are challenged as the investigation is still pending, therefore, application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) is not maintainable in terms of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Lal Yadav and Others vs. The State of U.P. and Others reported in 1989 Cr. LJ 1013, decided on 01.02.1989 and answered that after lodging the FIR, no interference is permissible by this Court in the exercise of its inherent powers, hence, no relief can be granted despite the issue is already resolved in the Mediation Centre.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that marriage of applicant No.1 was solemnized with the opposite party No.4 on 01.07.2009 and they were enjoying their matrimonial life and out of their wedlock, two children were born, namely, Shourya and Tejal, but due to some trivial issues, FIR in question was lodged on 14.06.2019 by the opposite party No.4. In the present case, the investigation was started and mediation was also initiated before the court below, but applicant No.1 was not satisfied with the mediation proceeding initiated before the court below, hence, the present application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) was filed and with the consent of learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.4, the matter was sent to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court on 31.07.2020.

In the case of Ram Lal Yadav (supra) the provision of anticipatory bail, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. did not exist, therefore, there was a dilemma to get the remedy of pre-arrest during the investigation, then it was clarified by this Court that High Court has no inherent powers, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the arrest of accused persons during the course of the investigation, but it was clarified that High Court can always issue a writ of mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution restraining the police officer for misusing his legal power in relation to arrest and FIR can be quashed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is covered under the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) 15 and the present case law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases as discussed above.

Click here to read the judgment

Judgment reviewed by Sakshi Mishra