SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the first information report dated 20-12-1997 giving rise to registration of case crime No. 389 of 1997, P. S. Mughalsarai, District Chandauli as contained in Annexure-3. Annexure-3 is a plain copy. Nowhere in the writ petition it has been stated that it is true copy of the certified copy of the First Information Report in question. It has also not been stated as to how the petitioner has obtained it. Paragraph 7 of the writ petition states that a true copy of the First Information Report is being filed as Annexure-3 which in the affidavit has been stated by the deponent-petitioner to be true to his personal knowledge.1.1. The petitioner claims himself to be the Joint Secretary of the Samajvadi Party of District Chandauli.1.2. The petitioner has come up with a claim that one Udai Nath Singh alias Chulbul is Vice-President of District Panchayat, Varanasi, who is contesting the M. L. C. elections from Varanasi constituency on Bhartiya Janta Party Ticket, Hira Lal alias Chakkan of his Samajvadi Party is contesting Udai Nath Singh; Every foul means has been adopted by Udai Nath Singh with the help of the Executive and he has got falsely implicated several workers of the Samajvadi Party including the petitioner, Udai Nath Singh and his brother Brijesh Singh have a long criminal history, yet the machinery of the State is helping them in their all wrong acts; Udai Nath Singh aforementioned manipulated and managed Respondent No. 3 the Station Officer, P. S. Mughalsarai, District Chandauli to lodge the impugned first information report, the last portion of which reads thus :-1.3. In the counter affidavit, which has been sworn by Sri Raghunath Gautam, who is presently posted as Station Officer, P. S. Ali Nagar, District Chandauli and is the investigation officer of the case in question, has denied the correctness of the statement made by the petitioner. He has also brought on the record a hand written coyp of the first information report, the last part of which reads thus :-1.4. The counter affidavit appends a Xerox copy of another first information report, the particulars of which have been made legible by a fresh writing, as Annexure-CA2. It is not understandable as to why Annexure-CA 1, which is the impugned information report, is not a Xerox copy of the first information report.

(2.) In Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2714 of 1997 Sarnam Singh Yadav v. S. S. P. Bareilly and others we had passed the following order on 17-12-97 :- "The prayer of the petitioner is to quash the first information report giving rise to registration of crime case No. 283 of 1997 under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409, I. P. C. and Sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, P. S. Fatehganj East, District Bareilly as contained in Annexure-2.2. Annexure-1 is not a certified copy of the aforementioned first information report. It is merely a typed copy of an alleged Xerox copy of the first information report. The alleged first information report itself refers to appending an enquiry report along with the first information report which the petitioner has not appended. Mr. Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that since his client could not get that report it has not been appended. Mr. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner comes up with a plea that the authorities are not supplying certified copy of the first information report and hence the petitioners are left with no option but to obtain it by any means. If one has to accept the correctness of the statement of Mr. Misra, then it will mean perpetuating an apparent illegality and avoidance of payment of court fee by those persons who are desirous of obtaining a certified copy of the public document.First Information Report is a public document and any person is entitled to have its certified copy either from the police authorities and/or from any court where it is lying if a person files an application and prepared to pay the proper court fee. In such an event no authority can refuse supplying the certified copy of the first information report.

(3.) We come to the merits of this case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a honest person and he has been falsely implicated in the backdrop that he has refused to entertain the co-operative authorities. This is a question of fact and we cannot adjudicate in exercise of our discretionary powers more so when none of the co-operative authorities have been impleaded in their personal capacity nor has any date, time of the alleged demand has been mentioned in the writ petition.