1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the F.I.R. dated 8.1.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0017 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504, 506, 34 and 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Karchhana District Allahabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter and for the said purpose he has taken the Court to the various records and has argued at length. He submits that the incident is stated to have taken place on 7 January, 2018 while the F.I.R. was lodged on 8 January, 2018 at 2:20 a.m. It is stated that injured persons have changed their version in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has submitted that Krishna Kumar Tiwari and Sunil Tiwari are involved in the matter. However, later on petitioner has falsely been implicated.
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also filed writ petition for fair investigation and the said writ petition is pending.
4. Learned counsel has also submitted that from the reading of the F.I.R it is evident that no case is made out against the petitioner.
5. Learned A.G.A. submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and his role has been shown to be assailant. He further submits that from the perusal of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also, it is evident that petitioner is the accused.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. We find that there is clear and categorical allegation against the petitioner that he shot the deceased Sanjay Gautam. Thus, it cannot be said that from the reading of the F.I.R. no case is made out.
8. After going through the material on record, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference under extra ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
9. It is trite law that power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection and that too in rarest of rate cases. At this stage, Court cannot consider the evidence to demonstrate that the accused is innocent. It is well settled law that the F.I.R. only initiates the investigation into a cognizable offence. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in State Of U.P v. O.P Sharma., (1996) 7 SCC 705, Rashmi Kumar (Smt) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, (1997) 2 SCC 397 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
10. Applying the principles as laid down in the above noted decisions, we find that there are serious allegations against the petitioner for murder and other offences, hence it cannot be said that no case is made out.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.