Om Prakash Singh vs State of U.P.through Collector

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the entire paper book. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that a Bench of this Court has asked for filing a counteraffidavit by its order dated 19397. It seems that the Bench while issuing direction for filing the counteraffidavit was somehow impressed by the fact that although the death of Azad had taken place on 5 397, on 3397 the petitioner has recorded his statement of Azad during the course of his investigation, in which Azad had given out names of some other persons than those mentioned in the F.I.R. This could not amply explain that the deceased could have died in some other circumstances than as mentioned in the F.I.R. This Court in Seven Judges'' Full Bench in Ram tal Yadav and others v. State of U.P. through D.M. Varanasi and others, 1989 A. W.C. 270, has clearly held that if the reading of an F.I.R. discloses commission of some offence the High Court cannot interfere in the matter of investigation and similarly the High Court cannot stay the arrest of the petitioner unless reading of t he F.I.R. demonstrates commission of no offence. The Full Bench authority is binding upon two Judges Bench of this Court. Accordingly, this Court will not be justified in interfering either in the investigation in Case Crime No. 67 of 1997 under Section 302/342I.P.C.P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaifarnagar, nor this Court will be justified in staying the arrest of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The stay order granted in this case on 19397 stands automatically vacated.