RAISA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7616 of 1993, Raisa Begam v. State of U.P., had been brought by eight persons with a prayer for issue a writ of certiorari quashing the first information report dated 28-11-1992 and consequent, investigation in the matter of Case Crime No. 6119 of 1992, under Section 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act. Without meaning to go into merits of the respective claims, it may be mentioned that according to the two first information reports filed by the petitioners there appear as a fact that a girl of one family has been married in the family of the other and another girl of the other family has been married in the family of the petitioners. There have been counter first information reports conveying certain allegations which could constitute an offence under Section 498A I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act. There are, thus counter cases. At the same time it cannot be said that they are based only on malice as the actions too might have been getting aggravated as a matter of retaliation by one or the other.

(2.) In the other set of the writ petitions of Sindhuja Prasad Singh, Rajendra Prasad Verma, it appears that a number of first information reports, if they could be so called were lodged by the police conveying the formation of a group for the purposes of carrying out forgery, impersonation and falsification of documents sometime also relating to courts. The matter was desired by the informant to be examined by the police and possibly they areproceeding. In the meanwhile the petitioners have moved this petition for writ of certiorari quashing the said first information report and investigation consequent under Sections 420, 467 and 168 120-B I. P.C. They have also desired a mandamus directing the police not to arrest them.

(3.) After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the first information report of the respective cases along with the affidavits filed by the petitioners it is concluded that it could not be said that offence of cognizable nature is disclosed. We do not mean to say that any offence has also been made out by the evidence or not but that its not to be decided by this court. The mere fact that the allegations or informations contained in the first information reports could constitute and lead to a cognizable offence, would invite the application in the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 : (199) Cri LJ 1438); State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992 Cri LJ 527) and State of West Bengal v. Swapna Kumar Guha, AIR 1982 SC 949 : (1982 Cri LJ 819). Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari quashing the first information report or the investigation shall not be maintainable.