J. C. GUPTA, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner, who is a Member of Rajya Sabha, has prayed for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the First Information Reports of the following cases :1. Case Crime No. 481/2000 under Sections 395/397/376 and 342, I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Etah.
(2.) Case Crime No. 482/2000 under Sections 323/342 and 506, I.P.C. P. S. Kotwali Nagar, district Etah.
(3.) Case Crime No. 484/2000 under Sections 504 and 506, I.P.C. P. S. Kotwali Nagar, district Etah.2. It is not necessary to narrate in detail the averments made in the writ petition and it would be suffice to state that the aforesaid three First Information Reports have been challenged on the grounds that they do not disclose that the petitioner is guilty of any offence; that the medical report contradicts the version given in the F.I.R.; and that they have been lodged for an ulterior motive and on political consideration. Though in the writ petition a ground was also taken that deletion of Section 438, Cr. P.C. in State of U. P. is wholly arbitrary and illegal but at the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this ground.3. First of all we take up the foremost issue as to whether or not the aforesaid First Information Reports disclose commission of cognizable offences. As far as First Information Report of Case Crime No. 481/2000 is concerned the same was lodged on 31-7-2000 by respondent No. 3 Smt. Durga Bharti. A perusal of the same leaves no room of doubt that commission of offences of dacoity, forcible abduction and rape are clearly disclosed therein. Once there is a disclosure of commission of cognizable offences, police has a statutory authority to investigate into the allegations made in the First Information Report. The position of law with regard to the powers of High Court in the matter of quashing of First Information Report is now well settled. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, the Apex Court took exception to the arbitrary manner in which jurisdiction by High Courts was being exercised in such matters and the Apex Court gave a note of caution in following words :- "We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of rare cases, that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.";