# Iserveu Technologies Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 251
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-01
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4691 of 2021
- **Bench:** Bachchoo Lal, Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/iserveu-technologies-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47206
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A.G.A., Sri Satish Chaturvedi

Jurisdiction of Writ Court is quite limited
for
quashing
the
F.I.R.
-it
cannot
marshal and record finding on the
questions of fact-it is in domain of the
investigating officer-Court not inclined
to quash the F.I.R.

W.P. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Iserveu Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
251
(2021)08ILR A251
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BACHCHOO LAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4691 of 2021

Iserveu Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ujjwal Satsangi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Satish Chaturvedi

Jurisdiction of Writ Court is quite limited
for
quashing
the
F.I.R.
-it
cannot
marshal and record finding on the
questions of fact-it is in domain of the
investigating officer-Court not inclined
to quash the F.I.R.

W.P. dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. St.of Har. Vs 2 Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC
604

2. Sta.of Telangana Vs Habib Abdullah
Jeelani & ors.; (2017)2 SCC 779,

3. Criminal Appeal No.742 of 2020 (Arising
out of SLP (Crl) No.5598 of 2020 (Arnab
Manoranjan Goswami Vs St. of Mah. & ors.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ujjawal Satsangi, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Satish
Chaturvedi,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent
no.
4
through
video
conferencing, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner seeking following relief :

"(i) Issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the record
and quashing the impugned case crime/FIR
No. 0009/2020 dated 07.01.2020, under
Section 66D of IT (Amendment) Act, 2008,
P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District- Kanpur
Nagar.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents not to arrest the
management or employees of the petitioner
company in pursuance of the impugned
case crime/FIR No. 0009/2020 dated
07.01.2020, under Section 66D of IT
(Amendment) Act, 2008, P.S. Kidwai
Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents not to seize the
Bank Account of the petitioner i.e. A/c No.
36190836357 at State Bank of India,
Branch KIIT Square, Bhubaneshwar.

(iv) To issue any other writ or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case.

(v) To award the costs in favour
of the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner's company is a
Financial Technology Startup, recognized
under the Companies Act, 2013, Department
of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade.
The work of the company is to promoting
digital financial transaction and works in
relation with nationalized and private sector
banks to provide mobile banking penetration
in the rural area of the country. Evidently, the
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner's company facilitate the online
transaction of money and provide ability to
the customers to have digital financial
presence. In the event of the entire process,
the petitioner's company do not keep any
amount and transfer the entire deposited
amount in hands of the customers for their
utilization. The case of the prosecution is that
the respondent no. 4 received a call for KYC
update on his phone on 04.01.2020.
Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 downloaded
an Application i.e. Team Viewer App and
soon Rs. 10,00,000/- were deducted from the
bank accounts of the respondent no. 4, his
son Akash Jain and his wife Meena Jain.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the Bank of the petitioner
received an e-mail from Cyber Crime Cell of
Kanpur Nagar on 18.01.2020 and in virtue
thereof, the bank account of the petitioner
was seized. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further argued that the money was transferred
from the account of respondent no. 4 to the
bank account of Saddam Hussain and
thereafter Saddam Hussain transferred the
amount to M/s Systematic Services Pvt. Ltd.
and the same was further transferred to the
bank account of the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that no case
under Section 66D of I.T. (Amendment) Act,
2008 is made out against the petitioner and
prays to quash the impugned F.I.R.

4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned
counsel for the respondent no. 4 have jointly
submitted that the allegations levelled in the
FIR is correct and it is the matter of
investigation and cognizable offence is made
out against the petitioner and there is no
justification for quashing of the impugned
FIR.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has made reference to the judgment of the
Apex court in the case of State of Haryana
vs. Bhajanlal), AIR 1992 SC 604. Learned
counsel for the petitioner in particularly,
referred to paragraph 108(7) of the said
judgment which is quoted herein for ready
reference.

"108. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by
this Court in a series of decisions relating
to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 of the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we
have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such abuse of
the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of
cases wherein such power should be
exercise.

... ... ...

(7)Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."

6. Although the learned counsel for
the petitioner has relied on judgment in the
case of Bhajanlal(supra), we do not find
pleading of the nature required to make out
a case under paragraph 108(7) of the
judgment. The counsel for the petitioner
was asked to invite attention of the Court
towards
the
pleading
to
fall
under
paragraph 108(7) of the judgment in the
case of Bhajanlal(supra). He failed to do
so.
8 All. Iserveu Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
253

7. The allegations made in the F.I.R.
discloses an offence. Any comments on
merits may cause prejudice to the petitioner
as the investigation is yet to be completed.

8. In view of the judgment of Apex
Court in the case of State of Telangana
Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Ors.;
(2017)2 SCC 779, the jurisdiction of this
Court is quite limited for quashing the
F.I.R. It cannot marshal and record finding
on the questions of fact. It remains in the
domain of the Investigating Officer. The
allegation in the F.I.R. is serious and
regarding illicit money transaction and
other allegations also which are quoted
hereunder for ready reference.

"सेिा में थाना प्रभारी विदिई नगर,
िानपुर वदनांि 04.01.2020 महोदय जी,
साइबर फ्राड सिन्ध में मेरे बैंि खाते िे बारे में
मेरे पास Paytm िे वलये KYC िराने िे वलए
मो०नं० 8918536632 से फोन आया था आज
वदनांि 04.01.2020 समय लगभग 16.00 Hrs
Pm उन्ोंने हमसे QS app िो Play store से
Team VeEWerapp डाउनलोड िरिाया वफर
उसिे वनदेशानुसार हम आगे बढते गये रहे।
हमने देखा वि उन्ोंने हमसे Rs. 1/-PAYTM में
ट्ांसफर िरिाया और उसिे बाद मेरे पास िई
OTP आने लगो वफर मेरे एिाउंट से Rs.
10,00,004.90 (Rs. Ten LAKH and Four and
paise Ninety only) डेवबट हो गए। वफर Rs.
42,000/- वनिल गए वफर Rs.10,000/- वनिल
गए उसिे बाद Rs.5,000/-वनिल गये। उसी
समय Rs. 1,00,000/- भी वनिल गए। लेविन
यह Rs.1,00,000/-PAYTMसे हमें मनोज िुमार
जैन िे खाते में आिाश जैन िे खाते से भी
हमारे 1,00,000/-वनिल गए। इस संबंध में हमने
HDFC BANK में अपने खाता CEASE िरा
वदये। और REF.NO.111033377हमें वदया
गया। इसिे अलािा हमारे पास फ्राड िरने
िाला िा फोन आया 8918536632 मोबाइल नं०
से और दुबारा पैसे िा लेन देन फ्राड िरने िे
वलए और मेरे अिाउंट HDFC BANK, गोविंद
नगर िानपुर में है। वजसिी वििरणी वनम्न है।
वदनांि 04.01.2020 account number savings
bank 1 02981600006383 मनोज िुमार जैन,
वनिासी-10,00,004.90/- debit card NO43862401352938332.02981530005323मीना
जैन,
वनिासी
42,000/-
वनिासी
Rs.10,000/िुल 52000/- debit card NO-
41602108000891643.02981600005640आ
िाश जैन, वनिासी- Rs.1,00,000/- वनिासी
Rs.5000/- िुल 105000/- debit card no5129670600714344
यह
सब
िायिाही
16:00pm बजे से 16:30 ति िे लगभग हुई।
िृपया आपिा विभाग मेरी मदद िरे वजससे
वि मेरे रुपये मुझे वमल जाए अवतशय धन्यिाद
sd अंग्रेजी अपठनीय 04.01.2020 मनोज िुमार
जैन R/o 128/589, K Block, मेन रोड, विदिई
नागर िानपुर-208011 थाना विदिई नगर
Mob-9336331895
sdअंग्रेजी
अपठनीय
04.01.2020 नोट- मैं िा० 5260 आिाश वतिारी
प्रमावणत िरता हूँ वि यह तहरीर ि िायमी मेरे
द्वारा बोल बोलिर टाइप िरायी गयी।"

9. In the recent judgment dated
27.11.2020 in Criminal Appeal No.742 of
2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5598
of 2020 (Arnab Manoranjan Goswami
vs. State of Maharahtra and other)
Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the
principles with regard to quashing of F.I.R.
and after referring to various earlier
judgments observed as under :

"42 Now, it is in this background
that it becomes necessary for this Court to
evaluate what, as a matter of principle, is
the true import of the decision of this Court
in Habib Jeelani (supra). This was a case
where,
on
the
basis
of
a
report
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
underSection 154off theCrPC, an FIR was
registered
for
offences
punishable
underSections 147,148,149and307of the
IPC. Challenging the initiation of the
criminal action, the inherent jurisdiction of
the High Court to quash an FIR was
invoked. The High Court (as paragraph 2
of the judgment of this Court in Habib
Jeelani (supra) indicates) expressed its
"disinclination to interfere on the ground
that it was not appropriate to stay the
investigation of the case". It was in this
background that the following issue was
formulated in the first paragraph of the
judgment of this Court, speaking through
Justice Dipak Misra (as he then was), for
consideration:

"1. The seminal issue that arises
for consideration in this appeal, by special
leave, is whether the High Court while
refusing to exercise inherent powers
underSection 482of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) to interfere in an
application
for
quashment
of
the
investigation, can restrain the investigating
agency not to arrest the accused persons
during the course of investigation."

Between paragraphs 11 and 15,
this Court then evaluated the nature of the
jurisdiction underSection 482of the CrPC
or underArticle 226of the Constitution for
quashing an FIR and observed:

"(11) Once an FIR is registered,
the accused persons can always approach
the High Court underSection 482CrPC or
underArticle 226of the Constitution for
quashing of the FIR.In Bhajan Lal [State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC
604] the two- Judge Bench after referring
to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad
[Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad,
(1972) 1 SCC 452 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 208] ,
Jehan Singh v. Delhi Admn. [Jehan Singh
v. Delhi Admn., (1974) 4 SCC 522 : 1974
SCC (Cri) 558 : AIR 1974 SC 1146] ,Amar
Nath v. State of Haryana [Amar Nathv.
State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137: 1977
SCC (Cri) 585] ,Kurukshetra University v.
State of Haryana [Kurukshetra Universityv.
State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451 : 1977
SCC (Cri) 613] ,State of Bihar v.
J.A.C.Saldanha [State of Bihar v. J.A.C.
Saldanha, (1980) 1 SCC 554 : 1980 SCC
(Cri) 272 : AIR 1980 SC 326] ,State of
W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha [State of
W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1
SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283 : AIR 1982
SC
949]
,Nagawwa
v.
Veeranna
Shivalingappa
Konjalgi
[Nagawwav.
Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3
SCC 736 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 507 : AIR 1976
SC 1947] , Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.
Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao
Angre
[Madhavrao
Jiwajirao
Scindia
v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1
SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] ,State of
Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan [State of Biharv.
Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC 655 : 1989
SCC (Cri) 27 : AIR 1989 SC 1] and some
other authorities that had dealt with the
contours of exercise of inherent powers of
the High Court, thought it appropriate to
mention certain category of cases by way of
illustration
wherein
the
extraordinary
power underArticle 226of the Constitution
or inherent power underSection 482CrPC
could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. The Court also
observed that it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently
channelised
and
inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(12). The illustrations given by the Court
need to be recapitulated: (Bhajan Lal case
[State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 :
8 All. Iserveu Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
255
AIR 1992 SC 604] , SCC pp. 378-79, para
102)

(1) Where the allegations made in
the
first
information
report
or
the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the
first
information
report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an
investigation
by
police
officers
underSection 156(1)of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview ofSection 155(2)of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of
the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated underSection
155(2)of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisionsof the Codeor the Act concerned
(under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted)
to
the
institution
and
continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision inthe
Codeor the Act concerned, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fides
and/or
where
the
proceeding
is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due
to private and personal grudge.

It is worthy to note that the Court
has clarified that the said parameters or
guidelines are not exhaustive but only
illustrative. Nevertheless, it throws light on
the circumstances and situations where the
Court's inherent power can be exercised.

13. There can be no dispute over
the proposition that inherent power in a
matter of quashment of FIR has to be
exercised sparingly and with caution and
when and only when such exercise is
justified by the test specifically laid down in
the provision itself. There is no denial of
the fact that the power under Section
482CrPC is very wide but it needs no
special emphasis to state that conferment of
wide power requires the Court to be more
cautious. It casts an onerous and more
diligent duty on the Court.

14. In this regard, it would be
seemly
to
reproduce
a
passage
fromKurukshetra University [Kurukshetra
University v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4
SCC 451 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 613] wherein
Chandrachud, J. (as his Lordship then was)
opined thus: (SCC p. 451, para 2) ―

"2. It surprises us in the extreme
that the High Court thought that in the
exercise
of
its
inherent
powers
underSection 482of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,
it
could
quash
a
first
information report. The police had not even
commenced
investigation
into
the
complaint filed by the Warden of the
University and no proceeding at all was
pending in any court in pursuance of the
FIR. It ought to be realised that inherent
powers
do not
confer an
arbitrary
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction on the High Court to act
according to whim or caprice. That
statutory power has to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection and in the
rarest of rare cases."

(15). We have referred to the said
decisions only to stress upon the issue, how
the exercise of jurisdiction by the High
Court
in
a
proceeding
relating
to
quashment of FIR can be justified. We
repeat even at the cost of repetition that the
said power has to be exercised in a very
sparing manner and is not to be used to
choke or smother the prosecution that is
legitimate. The surprise that was expressed
almost four decades ago in Kurukshetra
University case [Kurukshetra University v.
State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 451 : 1977
SCC (Cri) 613] compels us to observe that
we are also surprised by the impugned
order."

43 Thereafter, this Court noted
that "the High Court has not referred to
allegations made in the FIR or what has
come out in the investigation". While on the
one hand, the High Court declined in
exercising its jurisdiction underSection
482to quash the proceedings, it nonetheless
directed the police not to arrest the
appellants during the pendency of the
investigation. It was in this context that
thisCourt observed that the High Court
had, while dismissing the applications
underSection 482, passed orders that if the
accused
surrenders
before
the
trial
Magistrate, he shall be admitted to bail on
such terms and conditions as it was deemed
fit and appropriate. After adverting to the
earlier decision in Hema Mishra vs State
of UP, (2014) 4 SCC 453, this Court
observed:

"23. We have referred to the
authority inHema Mishra [Hema Mishra v.
State of U.P., (2014) 4 SCC 453 : (2014) 2
SCC (Cri) 363] as that specifically deals
with the case that came from the State of
Uttar Pradesh whereSection 438CrPC has
been deleted. It has concurred with the
view expressed inLal Kamlendra Pratap
Singh [Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v.
State of U.P., (2009) 4 SCC 437 : (2009) 2
SCC (Cri) 330] . The said decision,
needless to say, has to be read in the
context of the State of Uttar Pradesh. We
do not intend to elaborate the said
principle as that is not necessary in this
case. What needs to be stated here is that
the States whereSection 438CrPC has not
been deleted and kept on the statute book,
the High Court should be well advised that
while entertaining petitions 226of the
Constitution
orSection
482CrPC,
it
exercises judicial restraint. We may hasten
to clarify that the Court, if it thinks fit,
regard being had to the parameters of
quashing and the self-restraint imposed by
law, has the jurisdiction to quash the
investigation and may pass appropriate
interim orders as thought apposite in law,
but it is absolutely inconceivable and
unthinkable to pass an order of the present
nature while declining to interfere or
expressing
opinion
that
it
is
not
appropriate to stay the investigation. This
kind of order is really inappropriate and
unseemly. It has no sanction in law. The
courts
should
oust
and
obstruct
unscrupulous litigants from invoking the
inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the
drop of a hat to file an application for
quashing
of
launching
an
FIR
or
investigation and then seek relief by an
interim order. It is the obligation of the
Court to keep such unprincipled and
unethical litigants at bay."

44 The above decision thus arose
in a situation where the High Court had
declined to entertain a petition for
quashing
an
FIR
underSection
482
Cr.P.C.However, it nonetheless directed
8 All. Iserveu Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
257
the investigating agency not to arrest the
accused during the pendency of the
investigation.
This
was
held
to
be
impermissible by this Court. On the other
hand, this Court clarified that the High
Court if it thinks fit, having regard to the
parameters for quashing and the selfrestraint
imposed
by
law,
has
the
jurisdiction to quash the investigation "and
may pass appropriate interim orders as
thought apposite in law". Clearly therefore,
the High Court in the present case has
misdirected itself in declining to enquire
prima facie on a petition for quashing
whether the parameters in the exercise of
that jurisdiction have been duly established
and if so whether a case for the grant of
interim bail has been made out. The settled
principles which have been consistently
reiterated since the judgment of this Court
in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp.1 SCC 335("Bhajan Lal") include a
situation where the allegations made in the
FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken
at their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the
accused. This legal position was recently
reiterated in a decision by a two-judge
Bench of this Court in Kamal Shivaji
Pokarnekar vs State of Maharashtra,
(2019)14 SCC 350

45 The striking aspect of the
impugned judgment of the High Court
spanning over fifty-six pages is the absence
of any evaluation even prima facie of the
most basic issue. The High Court, in other
words, failed to apply its mind to
fundamental issue which needed to be
considered while dealing with a petition for
quashing
underArticle
226of
the
Constitution orSection 482of the CrPC.
The High Court, by its judgment dated 9
November 2020, has instead allowed the
petition for quashing to stand over for
hearing a month later, and therefore
declined to allow the appellant''s prayer for
interim bail and relegated him to the
remedy underSection 439of the CrPC. In
the meantime, liberty has been the casualty.
The High Court having failed to evaluate
prima facie whether the allegations in the
FIR, taken as they stand, bring the case
within
the
fold
ofSection
306read
withSection 34of the IPC, this Court is now
called upon to perform the task."

xxxxxxxx

57
While
considering
an
application for the grant of bail under
Article 226 in a suitable case, the High
Court must consider the settled factors
which emerge from the precedents of this
Court. These factors can be summarized as
follows:

(i) The nature of the alleged
offence, the nature of the accusation and
the severity of the punishment in the case of
a conviction;

(ii)
Whether
there
exists
a
reasonable apprehension of the accused
tampering with the witnesses or being a
threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

(iii) The possibility of securing
the presence of the accused at the trial or
the likelihood of the accused fleeing from
justice;

(iv) The antecedents of and
circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused;

(v) Whether prima facie the
ingredients of the offence are made out, on
the basis of the allegations as they stand, in
the FIR; and

(vi) The significant interests of
the public or the State and other similar
considerations.

58 These principles have evolved
over a period of time and emanate from the
following (among other) decisions:Prahlad
Singh Bhati vs NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
280;Ram Govind Upadhyay vs Sudarshan
Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598; State of UP vs
Amarmani(2001) 4 SCC 280(2002) 3 SCC
598
J
Tripathi,
(2005)8
SCC
2133;Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs Ashis
Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496;Sanjay
Chandra vs CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; andP.
Chidambaram vs Central Bureau of
Investigation, (Criminal Appeal No.1605
of 2019 decided on 22 October 2019).

59 These principles are equally
applicable to the exercise of jurisdiction
underArticle 226of the Constitution when
the court is called upon to secure the
liberty of the accused. The High Court must
exercise its power with caution and
circumspection, cognizant of the fact that
this jurisdiction is not a ready substitute for
recourse to the remedy of bail underSection
439of the CrPC. In the backdrop of these
principles, it has become necessary to
scrutinize the contents of the FIR in the
case at hand. In this batch of cases, a
prima facie evaluation of the FIR does not
establish the ingredients of the offence of
abetment of suicide underSection 306of the
IPC. The appellants are residents of India
and do not pose a flight risk during the
investigation or the trial. There is no
apprehension of tampering of evidence or
witnesses.
Taking
these
factors
into
consideration,
the
order
dated
11
November 2020 envisaged the release of
the appellants on bail.

60 Human liberty is a precious
constitutional value, which is undoubtedly
subject to regulation by validly enacted
legislation. As such, the citizen is subject to
the
edicts
of
criminal
law
and
procedure.Section
482recognizes
the
inherent power of the High Court to make
such orders as are necessary to give effect
to the provisions of theCrPC "or prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice".
Decisions of this court require the
High(2005) 8 SCC 21(2010) 14 SCC
496(2012) 1 SCC 40Criminal Appeal No.
1605 of 2019 decided on 22 October 2019
Courts, in exercising the jurisdiction
entrusted to them underSection 482, to act
with circumspection. In emphasising that
the High Court must exercise this power
with a sense of restraint, the decisions of
this Court are founded on the basic
principle that the due enforcement of
criminal law should not be obstructed by
the accused taking recourse to artifices and
strategies. The public interest in ensuring
the due investigation of crime is protected
by ensuring that the inherent power of the
High Court is exercised with caution. That
indeed is one - and a significant - end of
the spectrum. The other end of the
spectrum
is
equally
important:
the
recognition bySection 482of the power
inhering in the High Court to prevent the
abuse of process or to secure the ends of
justice
is
a
valuable
safeguard
for
protecting liberty. The Code of Criminal
Procedure of 1898 was enacted by a
legislature which was not subject to
constitutional rights and limitations; yet it
recognized the inherent power in Section
561A. Post- Independence, the recognition
by Parliament of the inherent power of the
High Court must be construed as an aid to
preserve the constitutional value of liberty.
The writ of liberty runs through the fabric
of the Constitution. The need to ensure the
fair investigation of crime is undoubtedly
important in itself, because it protects at
one level the rights of the victim and, at a
more fundamental level, the societal
interest
in
ensuring
that
crime
is
investigated and dealt with in accordance
with law. On the other hand, the misuse of
the criminal law is a matter of which the
High Court and the lower Courts in this
country must be alive. In the present case,
8 All. Iserveu Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
259
the High Court could not but have been
cognizant of the specific ground which was
raised before it by the appellant that he
was being made a target as a part of a
series of occurrences which have been
taking place since April 2020. The specific
case of the appellant is that he has been
targeted because his opinions on his
television channel are unpalatable to
authority. Whether the appellant has
established a case for quashing the FIR is
something on which the High Court will
take a final view when the proceedings are
listed before it but we are clearly of the
view that in failing to make even a prima
facie evaluation of the FIR, the High Court
abdicated its constitutional duty and
function as a protector of liberty. Courts
must be alive to the need to safeguard the
public interest in ensuring that the due
enforcement of criminal law is not
obstructed. The fair investigation of crime
is an aid to it. Equally it is the duty of
courts across the spectrum - the district
judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme
Court - to ensure that the criminal law does
not become a weapon for the selective
harassment of citizens. Courts should be
alive to both ends of the spectrum - the
need to ensure the proper enforcement of
criminal law on the one hand and the need,
on the other, of ensuring that the law does
not become a ruse for targeted harassment.
Liberty across human eras is as tenuous as
tenuous can be. Liberty survives by the
vigilance of her citizens, on the cacophony
of the media and in the dusty corridors of
courts alive to the rule of (and not by) law.
Yet, much too often, liberty is a casualty
when one of these components is found
wanting."

xxxxxxxxxx

"63 More than four decades ago,
in a celebrated judgment in State of
Rajasthan, Jaipur vs Balchand, (1977)4
SCC 306, Justice Krishna Iyer pithily
reminded us that the basic rule of our
criminal justice system is bail, not jail. The
High Courts and Courts in the district
judiciary of India must enforce this
principle in practice, and not forego that
duty, leaving this Court to intervene at all
times.
We
must
in
particular
also
emphasise the role of the district judiciary,
which provides the first point of interface to
the citizen. Our district judiciary is wrongly
referred to as the 'subordinate judiciary'. It
may be subordinate in hierarchy but it is
not subordinate in terms of its importance
in the lives of citizens or in terms of the
duty to render justice to them. High Courts
get burdened when courts of first instance
decline to grant anticipatory bail or bail in
deserving cases. This continues in the
Supreme Court as well, when High Courts
do not grant bail or anticipatory bail in
cases falling within the parameters of the
law. The consequence for those who suffer
incarceration are serious. Common citizens
without the means or resources to move the
High Courts or this Court languish as
undertrials. Courts must be alive to the
situation as it prevails on the ground - in
the jails and police stations where human
dignity has no protector. As judges, we
would do well to remind ourselves that it is
through the instrumentality of bail that our
criminal
justice
system''s
primordial
interest in preserving the presumption of
innocence
finds
its
most
eloquent
expression. The remedy of bail is the
"solemn expression of the humaneness of
the justice system". Tasked as we are with
the primary responsibility of preserving the
liberty
of
all
citizens,
we
cannot
countenance an approach that has the
consequence of applying this basic rule in
an inverted form. We have given expression
to our anguish in a case where a citizen has
approached this court. We have done so in
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order to reiterate principles which must
govern countless other faces whose voices
should not go unheard."

10. Taking note of the nature of the
allegation made in the F.I.R. and the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
the discussion made above, this Court is
not
inclined
to
quash
the
F.I.R.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is
dismissed.

11. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)08ILR A260
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 6583 of 2021

Dr. Mukut Nath Verma
 ...Petitioner-in-Person
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dr. Mukut Nath Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Serious allegations have been made by the
Petitioners
against
respondent
authorities-but
neither
supporting
document nor any material available on
record
to
support
the
contentionPetitioner has unauthorisedly filed the
writ-as no authorization has been placed
neither of accused nor of his family
member.

W.P. dismissed with cost. (E-7)
List of Cases cited:

1. Improvement Trust Ropar through its
Chairman Vs S. Tejinder Singh Gujral & ors.,
1995 Supp. (4) SCC 577 (para-3)

2.
Dhanraj
Singh
Choudhry
Vs
Nathulal
Vishwakarma, (2012) 1 SCC 741 (Para-25)

3. O.P. Sharma Vs High Court of P&H, (2011) 6
SCC 86

4.Chandra Prakash Tyagi Vs Benarsi Das (dead)
by legal representatives & ors., (2015) 8 SCC
506

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. Heard Dr. Mukut Nath Verma,
petitioner
in
person
through
video
conferencing and Sri Manish Goel, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Sri A.K. Sand, learned AGA for Staterespondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following relief:

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus to the
respondent no. 5 & 6 SHO P.S. Hazratganj
Kotwali
Lucknow
UP
and
SHO
Colonelganj, Prayagraj, UP to lodge FIRs
on
the
basis
of
complaints
dated
22.12.2020 and 07.07.2021 respectively
under Section 154 Cr P C made by the
petitioner and to provide copy of the FIRs
thereof;

II. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of mandamus to the
respondent no. 12 Central Bureau of
Investigation for investigating (C.B.I.) both
the FIRs;

III. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus to the