# Abhishekh Pushkar v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 335
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-05-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7979 of 2009
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh, Naheed Ara Moonis
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abhishekh-pushkar-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41379
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 226-Quashing
F.I.R.-offence under Section 306 IPCfrom suicide note name of petitioner
disclosed- prima facie offence made outFIR cannot be quashed-however in the
light of Supreme Court direction in Smt.
Amrawati case-petition disposed of.

Held: Para 6 & 7

The FIR is not Encyclopaedia of the facts
and circumstances, the same may be
collected
by
the
I.O.
during
investigation. So far as constitution of
the offence under section 306 IPC is
concerned, prima facie it is made out on
the basis of the allegations made in the
impugned
FIR,
the
allegations
are
disclosing
the
commission
of
a
cognizable offence and there is no
ground for quashing the FIR and its
investigation, therefore, the prayer for
quashing the FIR and its investigation is
refused.

However,
considering
the
facts,
circumstances of he case and academic
career of the petitioner, it is directed
that in case petitioner appears before
the court concerned within 30 days from
today and applies for bail, the same shall
be heard and disposed of
Case law discussed:
2005 Cr.L.J. 755, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh
Versus State of U.P.

## Text

2 All] Abhishekh Pushkar V. State of U.P. and others
335
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7979 of
2009

Abhishekh Pushkar

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Virendra Bhatia
Sri Vijay Shanker Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Quashing
F.I.R.-offence under Section 306 IPCfrom suicide note name of petitioner
disclosed- prima facie offence made outFIR cannot be quashed-however in the
light of Supreme Court direction in Smt.
Amrawati case-petition disposed of.

Held: Para 6 & 7

The FIR is not Encyclopaedia of the facts
and circumstances, the same may be
collected
by
the
I.O.
during
investigation. So far as constitution of
the offence under section 306 IPC is
concerned, prima facie it is made out on
the basis of the allegations made in the
impugned
FIR,
the
allegations
are
disclosing
the
commission
of
a
cognizable offence and there is no
ground for quashing the FIR and its
investigation, therefore, the prayer for
quashing the FIR and its investigation is
refused.

However,
considering
the
facts,
circumstances of he case and academic
career of the petitioner, it is directed
that in case petitioner appears before
the court concerned within 30 days from
today and applies for bail, the same shall
be heard and disposed of
Case law discussed:
2005 Cr.L.J. 755, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh
Versus State of U.P.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner Abhishekh Pushkar with
a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari, quashing the
FIR of case crime, No. 217 of 2009 under
section 306 IPC, P.S. Link Road, District
Ghaziabad and its further investigation.
The next prayer is to issue a. writ, order
or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents not to arrest the
petitioner in the above mentioned case or
to pass any order which is deemed fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The facts in brief of this case are
that the FIR, of this case has been lodged
by respondent No. 3 Pankaj Kumar
Agrahari on 15.4.2009 at 8.15 P.M. in
respect of the incident which had occurred
on 15.4.2009 after 3.18 P.M. It is alleged
in the FIR that the deceased Km. Sarika
Agrahari, the niece of the respondent no.
3 was student of B.Tech. IV year (E.C.
Branch) of Indraprastha Engineering
College, Site-IV, Sahibabad and she was
Inmate of-the girl hostel of the college
where she was residing in room No. 315.
The deceased gave a telephonic message
to respondent no.3 on 15.4.2009 at 3.18
P.M. to bring a lock and rupees, thereafter
the respondent No. 3 came to the
Indraprastha college to meet the deceased
and he tried to contact by his mobile,
phone, with the deceased from the guard
room of the college but calls sent by the
Respondent No. 3 of the deceased's
mobile' phone were unattended. It was
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
informed by him to warden and guard of
the college, Thereafter Smt. Suman, the
warden and guard of the college went to
the room of the deceased and carne back
who informed that her room was closed
from in side. Thereafter the net of the
adjoining room was broken from where it
was seen that the deceased was in a
hanging condition, then her room .was
open ed and found the deceased in a
hanging condition, a suicide note was
kept on her wed, in which it was written
that the petitioner Abhishekh Pushkar had
played with her, modesty (Izzat). The first
informant
Respondent
No.
3
was
informed earlier also by the deceased that
the petitioner Abhishekh Pushkar was
harassing her unnecessarily, the petitioner
Abhishekh Pushkar was student of M.E.
of the college. The deceased was
unnecessarily harassed by the petitioner
due to which she was mentally disturbed
and committed suicide. Being aggrieved
from the FIR lodged against the petitioner
the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Heard Sri Virendra Bhatia, Senior
Advocate assisted by, Sri Vijay Shanker
Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Government Advocate for the
State of U. P..

It is contended by learned counsel for
the petitioner;

1. that the petitioner has passed B.Tech
examination
from
Indraprastha
Engineering College in the year
2008, he was looking for further
studies. In view of his brilliance,
decency, sincerity he got the job
offer
from
reputed
company
"WIPRO" when he was student of B.
Tech III yea. He is having very good
academic career. He belongs to
highly reputed family, his father is
retired
Professor
from
Chandra
Shekhar
Azad
Agricultural
University, Kanpur, his mother is
retired lecturer, his two sisters are
highly
qualified.
The
petitioner
belongs to family of academician and
research scholars.
2. The
petitioner
was
having
no
relationship with the deceased. She
was never harassed or tortured by the
petitioner. No such complaint was
made by her to her parents, college
administration or any other authority.
The deceased was student of B. Tech
IV year, she has committed suicide
due to other reasons including the
reason that she was, ,very, poor
student, her attendance in the college
was, only 45% and in internal
examination of the college, she had
obtained only 10% marks and she
was
not
selected
in
campus
replacement due to which she was
depressed such reporting has been
made in daily newspaper Dainik
Bhasker etc. dated 18.4.2009.
3. After the death of the deceased
several news items were published in
the newspapers in which it was
written
that
suicide
note
was
containing certain allegations as she
was having the suspicion that the
camera was fitted, in the bath room
of the college, through that camera
her photographs would have been
obtained by the petitioner but in
support of such allegation nothing
incriminating was recovered by the
police or college administration even
no camera etc. was recovered. All
these allegations were made on the
basis of the doubt and suspicion.
4. The contents of the suicide note were
published in daily newspaper "Amar
2 All] Abhishekh Pushkar V. State of U.P. and others
337
Ujala" published from New Delhi
dated 17.4.2009 which reads as
under," Main Sarika, Agrahari (B.
Tech IV year) student Main apni
maut apni rnarji se kar rahi hoon
meri maut ke bad mere pariwar
walaon ko koi bhi kutch na kahe
meri maut ka jimedar Abhishekh
Pushkar {ME passout last year pass
hai usne meri ijjat ke sath khilwar
kiya hai mere marne ke bad use
ceiling ke bathroom main camera
lagane tatha ek lakdi nahate hui
dekhane ke jurm main fansi (Maut
ke) saja ho."

The above mentioned suicide note is
not genuine even it was not having the
Signature of the deceased. The story of
recovery of the suicide note appears to be
concocted its genuineness is highly
doubtful because the deceased was
student of English medium but the suicide
note was written in Hindi language.

5. The stories of suicide published in
the different newspapers on different
dates are contradicting to each other.
In such circumstances, no reliance
can be placed on the FIR version.
6. The petitioner is innocent, he has not
committed any offence and there is
no
material
suggesting
his
participation in commission of the
alleged offence even on the basis of
the allegation made in the FIR no
offence under section 306 IPC is
made out.
7. The petitioner is having a bright
career in case he has been sent to jail
without having evidence; his, career
will be spoiled.
8. Even on the basis of the allegation
made in the. FIR no offence under
section 306 is made out, therefore,
the, FIR and its investigation may be
quashed and the petitioner may not
be arrested in the present case.

5. In reply of the above contention,
it is submitted by learned Government
Advocate that it is a case in which-the
deceased had committed suicide, she was
student of B. Tech IV year, she was living
in a room of the college's hostel.
According to the suicide note the
petitioner has played with the modesty of
the deceased, the suicide note discloses
the name of the petitioner .as an accused.
The detailed evidence relating to contents
of the suicide note may be collected
during investigation. But it is very clear
that the deceased was compelled by the
petitioner
to
commit
suicide.
The
allegation
made
in
the
FIR
are
constituting the offence punishable under
section 306 IPC which is cognizable
offence. At this stage the news items
published in the different newspapers on
different dates in respect of the death of'
the deceased are having no relevance and
there is no ground for quashing the FIR
and its investigation. The present petition
is devoid of merit, the same may be
dismissed.

6. Considering the submissions
made by learned counsel for .the
petitioner, learned Government Advocate
and from the perusal of the record
including the FIR it appears that the
allegations made in the FIR prima facie
discloses
the
commission
of
the,
cognizable offence. The FIR is not
Encyclopedia
of
the
facts
and
circumstances, the same may be collected
by the I.O. during investigation. So far as
constitution of the offence under section
306 IPC is concerned, prima facie it is
made out on the basis of the allegations
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
made
in
the
impugned
FIR,
the
allegations are disclosing the commission
of a cognizable offence and there is no
ground for quashing the FIR and its
investigation, therefore, the prayer for
quashing the FIR and its investigation is
refused.

7. However, considering the facts,
circumstances of he case and academic
career of the petitioner, it is directed that
in case petitioner appears before the court
concerned within 30 days from today and
applies for bail, the same shall be heard
and disposed of in view of Smt.
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P,
2005 Cr.L.J. 755 has been specifically
approved in this decision. In this regard
the Full bench has held in Amrawati:

1. Even if a cognizable offence is
disclosed in the FIR or complaint the
arrest of the accused is not a must,
rather: the police officer should be
guided by the the decision, of the
Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar
Vs. State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J. 1981,
before deciding whether to make an
arrest or not.
2. The High Court should ordinarily not
direct any Subordinate Court to
decide the bail application the same
day as that would be interfering with
the judicial discretion of the court
hearing
the
bail
application.
However, as stated above, when the
bail application is under section 437
Cr. P .C. ordinarily the Magistrate
should himself decide the bail
application the same day, and if he
decides in a rare and exceptional case
not to decide it on the same day, he
must record his reasons in writing.
As regards the application under
section 439 Cr.P.C. it is in the
discretion of the learned sessions
judge, considering the facts and
circumstances whether to decide the
bail application the same day or not,
and it is also in his discretion to grant
interim bail the same day subject to
the final decision on the bail
application later.

8. The same has been approved by
the
Hon'ble
Apex
Court
in
Lal
Kamlendra Pratap Singh Versus State
of U.P. on 23.3.2009 in Criminal Appeal
No. 538 of 2009.

9. With this direction, this petition is
finally disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60638 of 2008

Nagesh Katariya

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Nipendra Tripathi
S.C.

U.P. Temporary Government Servant
(Termination of Service) Rules, 1975Petitioner-working as warder in jailappointed on Compassionate -during
training period on ground certain -
allegation-two show cause notice given
duly
replied
by
petitioner-
without
holding
disciplinary
enquiry
without
charge sheeted termination order passed