Amar Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard.

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the FIR, registered in Crime No. 115/2014. Assailing this, Shri Khan submits that the petitioner''s name was not initially mentioned in the complaint. It was later on mentioned by overwriting. The petitioner is falsely implicated in the allegations. He repeatedly stated that the allegations against the petitioner are factually incorrect and he cannot be made to face a criminal trial based on incorrect charges.

Prayer is opposed by the other side.

In the opinion of this Court, FIR can be challenged on limited grounds. Correctness of allegations cannot be examined in a writ petition. The Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, opined that interference can be made on limited grounds. For illustration, seven grounds were mentioned by Supreme Court in para 102 of the said judgment. In no uncertain terms, it is made clear that if the allegations mentioned in the FIR/complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety and even then do not prima facie constitute any offence, interference can be made. The same view is followed in Vasanti Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, .

The whole case as canvassed is based on correctness of the charges. Thus, no case for any interference at this stage is made out. Petition is dismissed. No costs.