DEVI SAHAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KHEM Karan, J. This application under Section 482 of Crpc has been filed for quasning the FIR (Annexure-1), lodged by one Sri Vipin Bihari on 22-6-2000 at 3. 45 with Police Station Ramkot of District Sitapur against the applicants in which it has been alleged that on 17-6-2000 at 5. 30 p. m. while the informant was near a polling station established for purpose of holding Panchayat Election; that these accused came and started abusing him and when the informant moved to his house, the accused started pelting stones at the house of Vipin Bihari and the accused Devi Sahai fired country made pistol, with a view to kill him. It was also said in tins FIR that the informant ran to his rescue, inside his house and in the meantime many villagers such as Prem Nath, Patari and Dadheej reached the spot and thereupon, the accused fled away, abusing and threatening the informant. The averments made in the petition are that FIR is totally false and concocted and this has been lodged to wreck vengeance on account of election enmity.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the State has raised a preliminary objection as against the maintainability of this applica tion under Section 482 of Crpc. His objec tion is based on a Division Bench Judg ment of this Court in Puttan Singh v. State of U. P. , reported in ACC 1987 (24), Page 268 which was subsequently endorsed by seven Judges Bench of this Court, in Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U. P. , ACC 1989 (26), Page 181, 1989 JIC 177 (All) (FB) and dictum in Ram Lai Yadav's case was fol lowed in Dal Beer Singh and others v. S. H. O. Bhozpur, District Ghaziabad. 1999 (1) JIC 883 (All) Merinal Kant Mallik and others v. State ofu. P. and another 1993 JIC Page 151; Ashok Kumar Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others, Criminal Law Jour nal 1993 Page 2083 ; Bhopal and others v. State of U. P. and others 1997 JIC 95 (Al lahabad ). His contention is that petition under Section 482 of Crpc, for quashing the FIR during the course of the investiga tion is not maintainable as against it, the contention of Sri Abid Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the law laid-down in Ram Lai Yeadav's case (supra) is no longer a good law, in view of the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court, in State of Hariyana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S. (Criminal) Page 426,1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 Supreme Court cases, Page 749; Mary Angel and others, v. State of Tamil-nadu (1999) 5 Supreme Court Cases, Page 209 ; 1999 (2) JIC 330 (SC) G. Sagar Suri and another v. State of U. P, AIR 2000 SC 754; 2000 (2) JIC 136 (SC) Sunil Kumar v. Mis Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court, Page 27. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to a decision dated 11-5- 2000, given by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in Ram Kumar and others v. State of U. P. in Criminal Misc. Case No. 450 of 2000. According to him, the learned Judge has ruled that since seven Judges decision in Ram Lai Yadav's case has been referred to a larger Bench of nine Judges and since Hon'ble the Apex Court has categorically said in various decisions that the High Court can, in exercise of its in herent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure quash FIR or stay the arrest, pending the investigation, o it cannot be said that such a petition for quashing an FIR is not maintainable under Section 482 of the Code.

(3.) EARLIER to the decision in Ram Lai Yadav's case, there was a Division Bench decision of this Court in Puttan Singh v. State of U. P, ACC 1987 (24) Page 268, where the view taken was that the police had unfettered power of investigation and the Court has no powers under Section 482 of Crpc to interfere with the same and the functions of the Courts would start only after submissions of the result of the inves tigation. A Full Bench of this Court, how ever, took slightly a different view in Prashant Gaur v. State of U. P. 1988 (25) ACC, Page 276, and ruled: (1 ). Investigation into an offence is a statutory function of the police and the superintendence thereof is vested in the State Government.