Disposed

Gautam Rojgar Sewak@Gautam Singh v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2018CRLP/5849/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash an F.I.R. regarding cheating and corruption. Instead, it directed that the petitioner not be arrested until the police report is submitted, while also mandating the police to conclude the investigation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not to be arrested till submission of police report; investigation concludes within three months.

Gautam Rojgar Sewak@Gautam Singh Vs State of U P and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5849 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Gautam Rojgar Sewak@Gautam Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Safiullah Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Akhilesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 15.01.2018 which has been registered as Case Crime No.30/2018, under Sections- 420, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S.- Bahjoi, District- Bheemnagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner(s) with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; much reliance has been placed upon paragraph nos.8 onwards to the writ petition; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner(s) in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶9

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶10

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner(s) shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner(s) shall participate and cooperate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to conclude the investigation as early as possible within a period of three months from today.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 15.3.2018 shiv

Gautam Rojgar Sewak@Gautam Singh v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Rojgar Sewak@Gautam Singh v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

In the Matter of Goods of Late Rai Bharat Kumar Vs

Mahesh Chandra Verma Vs Om Prakash and Another

Radhika Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Radhey Shyam Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sajid Islam Khan Deceased and Others Vs Khalil Islam Khan and Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ashutosh Pandey Alias Neeraj Pandey and Another