In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the petitioner sought to quash an FIR registered under section 409 IPC. The High Court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, rendering no interference under Article 226 necessary, and dismissed the petition.
No relief granted; the petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 38008 of 2018
Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brajesh Kumar Singh,Ravish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Sri Brajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 23.2.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 105 of 2017 under section 409 I.P.C., police station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that three enquiries were conducted against the petitioner for the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and in all the enquiry different amount which is said to have been embezzled by the petitioner was disclosed. He submits that there is specific allegation against three persons but the F.I.R. has been lodged only against the petitioner. Moreover, the matter is to be investigated by the Economic Offence Wing, Meerut, hence the present F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses cognizable offence.
After having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR, we are of the opinion that the impugned FIR discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner, hence, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner.
The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 21.12.2018 Shiraz
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Narendra Kumar Sharma
State Of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
