Vaibhav Upadhyay @ Rahul and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4165 of 2023 Petitioner :- Vaibhav Upadhyay @ Rahul And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Secrett. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Pathak,Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4014 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Leelawati And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Sectt Lko And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Pathak,Pawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh,Syed Raza Mehdi With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4195 of 2023 Petitioner :- Vaibhav Upadhyay Alias Rahul And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pandey,Sharad Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶1Learned A.G.A. for the State Respondents has produced before this Court instructions dated 20.09.2023 & 19.09.2023 sent by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station-Jalalpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar wherein it has been stated that the investigation has been completed and Charge Sheet No. A202/23 dated 14.08.2023 and Charge Sheet No. A70/2023 dated 02.07.2023 have been prepared and filed in Court on

12.09.2023 and 24.08.2023, respectively.

¶2The instructions are kept on record.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioners is out of station and a request has been made on his behalf that the matter has been taken up on some other date.

¶4It has also been stated by Sri Shashank Singh that an application for amendment has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the charge sheet.

¶5This Court finds that no such application is on record.

¶6Even so if such an application for amendment is filed, that would not make this Court bound to allow the amendment as charge sheet has been prepared and credible evidence must have been collected by the Investigating Officer. This Court sitting in limited jurisdiction of quashing of F.I.R. finds that if credible evidence has been collected and charge sheet has been filed in Court, the F.I.R. itself shows cognizable offence to be made out.

¶7Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners says that there are several judgement to the effect that even after filing of charge sheet, the writ petition for quashing of the F.I.R. is maintainable and should be entertained on its merits.

¶8Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary remedy which this Court exercises in the fact and circumstances of each case for doing justice between the parties.

¶9Certiorari being a writ which is discretionary in nature cannot be issued as "a matter of course".

¶10The petitioners had initially come challenging only the F.I.R. saying that no cognizable offence is made out. Now, the charge sheet has been prepared with credible evidence which has been filed in Court.

¶11This Court finds no good ground to show interference in the impugned F.I.R.

¶12These writ petitions stand dismissed in view of the fact that the petitioners have statutory remedy of challenging the charge sheets before the appropriate Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Order Date :- 22.11.2023 Darpan Sharma High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench