RAJESHWAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran and S. K. Jain, JJ. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A. G. A.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the FIR has been lodged after three and a half years. The incident took place on 21. 12. 2003 and the FIR was lodged only on 9. 8. 2007 on political considerations and that failure to file an application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. earlier was fatal for the prosecution. The FIR should also be quashed and the arrest of the petitioner stayed because for the same cause of action two FIRs could not be lodged in view of T. T. Anthony's case as earlier another FIR relating to the incident dated 21. 12. 2003 had been lodged under section 307 IPC, wherein the petitioner and others had got themselves bailed out.

(3.) SIGNIFICANTLY, in para No. 14 of the writ petition it is mentioned that respondent No. 4 and his family members had left 2 and 1/2 years ago, during which period they never visited the village, hence there was no possibility for them to know as to who had destroyed their property or committed the said loot. There is no denial here that no such incident of the complainant being forced to flee his village or his property being damaged and usurped by the petitioner had occurred. But what is stated is that is only that the complainant had no means of knowing as to who had damaged or expropriated his property as he had left the village. Apart from the fact that the complainant would have little reason to implicate the petitioners if they were not involved in the demolition and loot, whether the petitioner committed the crime or not is a matter for investigation or trial and cannot be adjudged in this writ petition. Also as the subsequent incident of forcing the complainant side to flee the village and the destruction and loot of his property is an aftermath to the earlier incident of causing fire arm injuries to the complainant in order to coerce them to withdraw their earlier FIR against the petitioners, hence there is no question of the applicability of T. T. Anthony's case to these facts. For all these reasons it cannot be said that prima facie no cognizable offence has been disclosed, and no ground for quashing of the FIR or for staying the arrest of the petitioners is made out. There is thus no force in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed. .