ISHTIYAQ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. C. Jain, J. Petitioner No. 1 is a Sub-Inspector of Police and petitioner No. 2 claims to be a businessman. They have prayed for quashing of the First Information Report dated 5-1-2003 registered at P. S. Kotwali Civil Lines, Allahabad as Crime No. 10 of 2003 under Sections 342/394/323/506/408 I. P. C. and/or for stay of their arrest in the said crime as also for transferring the investigation to C. B. C. I. D. or to P. S. C. R. P. , Lucknow.

(2.) WE have heard Sri S. U. Khan, learned counsel for petitioners and learned A. G. A. Counter-affidavit from the side of the State and rejoinder affidavit from the side of the petitioners have also been exchanged. The F. I. R. in question - Annexure 1 to the writ petition has been perused by us.

(3.) IT is noted from the counter-affidavit filed by Vijay Kumar Mishra - Investigating Officer of the case that evidence has come to be collected during investigation against the petitioners. In his statement made to the Investigating Officer, Respondent No. 3 has supported the version given by him in the F. I. R. The petitioners have come to figure in the statement of Ashok Kumar (servant of Respondent No. 3) who was carrying the currency and was allegedly robbed of the same by the petitioners in the manner stated above, though he is also a co-accused. Not only this, on 7-1-2003 while the Investigating Officer was in search of the petitioners, he found some blank papers with thumb impressions of Ashok Kumar from the pocket of the coat belonging to petitioner No. 1 from his room in the presence of the witnesses. He has also recorded the statement of Durga Prasad, the driver of the vehicle Tata Sumo No. M. H. 04/aa-2821 on 23rd January, 2003 who has given the details about the incident. The complicity of the petitioners in this serious crime is, prima facie, apparent from the evidence collected during the course of investigation. The petitioners are involved in a crime of very serious nature. So far as petitioner No. 1 (Police Sub-Inspector) is concerned, the allegations are as if the fence has started eating the crop, the protector of law turning to be law-breaker and desperado. There is no ground either to quash the F. I. R. or to stay the arrest of the petitioners in this serious crime. The petitioners are named in the F. I. R. Neither the informant-Respondent No. 3 nor his servant Ashok Kumar from whom the currency was allegedly robbed, is prima facie shown to have any enmity with any of them. The informant could not dare to falsely implicate the petitioners, one of whom is a Police Sub-Inspector.