BHAGWAN SWARUP SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the first information report relating to Crime No. 156 of 1994, under Section 420, I. P. C. A perusal of the said first informa tion report indicates commission of crime of embezzlement by the petitioner. This Court, consequently, cannot quash the first information report.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that since he had alleged mala fides in this case, consequent ly, this Court on 22-7-1994 had asked for a counter-affidavit and since no counter-af fidavit is filed, the petition be admitted. It may be stated here that once a criminal case is instituted against a particular per son, then in view of the large number of decisions by the Privy Council and that of the Supreme Court and this Court, this Court has only to see whether on the facts stated in the first information report, some criminal offence is disclosed or not? It is thereafter for the investigating officer to see whether the allegations in the first information report are true or whether they have been made against the petitioner due to mala fides or whether no case is made out after investigation as evidence collected may not substantiate the contents of the first information report ? This Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot undertake this exercise.