KAMLESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard ShriZafar Abbas,learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for staying the petitioners arrest and for quashing the First Information Report dated 25-7-2004 lodged by Shri Z. A. Siddiqui, Deputy Director Minority Welfare Department, U. P. at case crime No. 960 of 2004, under Sections 419/420/466/ 468/471/409 IPC, police station Kotwali Azamgarh, District Azamgarh.

(3.) ON the allegations, it cannot be said that no offence has been committed so as to justify quashing of the FIR. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia and is only registered for initiation of the investigation of a case and merely because some of the accused may not have been named initially, as their complicity may have come to light during investigation, can provide no ground for quashing the investigation against them. It has never been the law that if a particular accused is not named in the FIR, then the criminal case against him could not be investigated or that criminal proceedings could not take place against him or that the FIR against that particular accused should necessarily be quashed. Such an interpretation would give rise to an anomalous situation as in that event all FIRs in cases of circumstantial evidence where accused may not have been initially named, would necessarily have to be quashed or the arrest of the accused stayed. This would also amount to interference with the investigation which as has been authoritatively settled in various pronouncements of the Privy Council, Apex Court and this Court, is the prerogative of the police. According to the law reports it has only to be seen whether in a broad sense the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence, and neither any meticulous examination of the FIR, nor an evaluation of the genuineness of the allegations in the FIR or the eventual probability of conviction is to be gone into at this stage. The following lines from paragraph 11 of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, 2004 (2) JIC 173 (SC) : (2005) 1 SCC 122, deserve to be mentioned here: "in a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. " (Emphasis supplied)