Ramesh Sinha, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Kumar Sharma. learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. By means of this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the applicant has made the following prayer which are quoted hereinbelow: It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the issuance of process under Section 83. Cr. P.C. in Crime No. 46 of 2008 under Sections 407, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B, I.P.C. during the pendency of the present applicant before this Hon'ble Court and also pleased to quash the order of Judicial Magistrate, Mathura dated 1.5.2012 passed on the application of the applicant as well as the proclamation issued under Section 82, Cr. P.C. and also direct the Investigating Officer for holding the investigation fairly and impartially. Else the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and/or pass such further order or direction which may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(2.) DURING the course of arguments It came into light that the applicant has earlier preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6818 of 2011 in which he had made the following prayers: It is. therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very kindly be pleased to: I. Issue the writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned first information report against the/qua petitioner registered at Case Crime No. 46 of 2008 under Section 409/419/420/467/468/471/120B (Initially lodged as Case Crl. No. NIL/07. P.S. Navabad. Distt. Jhansi dated 21.11.2007). I.P.C. registered at the Police Station Refinery District Mathura as no offence is made out against the petitioner. II. Issue writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus not to arrest the petitioners against the directive of Apex Court as held in Joginder Kumar's case. III. Issue such other further writ order or direction to the Investigating Officer for conducting a fair investigation. IV. Issue writ in nature of certiorari to quash the non -bailable warrant as well as the proclamation issued under Section 82, Cr. P.C. as these orders passed ignoring the view of Apex Court passed in Joginder Kumar's case. V. Issue such other further writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case. VI. Award the costs of the petition to the petitioner. The aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.4.2011, The order passed by this Court is quoted hereinbelow: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned A.G.A. appearing for the State. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. registered at Case Crime No. 46 of 2008 under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B, I.P.C. District Mathura. The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others, : 2006 (56) ACC 433 : : 2006 (3) ACR 2842 (FB), reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others, : 2000 Cr. LJ 569 : : 1999 (3) ACR 1985 (FB), that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others. : AIR 1992 SC 604, attended with further elaboration that observations and directions contained in Joginder Kumar's case (Joginder Kumar v. State of U. P. and others, : (1994) 4 SCC 260 : 1994 ACR 483 (SC)). contradict extension to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under Article 226 and the same are intended to be observed in compliance by the Police, the breach whereof, it has been further elaborated, may entail action by way of departmental proceeding or action under the Contempt of Court Act. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as an alternative to anticipatory bail which is not invocable in the State of U. P. attended with further observation that what is not permissible to do directly cannot be done indirectly. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not brought forth anything cogent or convincing to manifest that no cognizable offence is disclosed prima facie on the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or that there was any statutory restriction operating on the police to investigate the case. Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and/therefore no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(3.) FROM the record of the present case, it transpires that after dismissal of the writ petition on 20.4.2011, the applicant did not surrender before the court below. Proceeding under Section 82. Cr. P.C. had been initiated earlier to the dismissal of the writ petition against him which was also affixed at his house and a copy of the same has also been given to his son on 11.3.2011. Another notice under Section 82, Cr. P.C. was given to the applicant on 20.4.2012. a copy of which was annexed as Annexure -6 at page 28 of the present application, by the Investigating Officer informing the applicant that if he does not surrender before the court below then proceeding under Section 83, Cr. P.C. shall be initiated against him.;