Dismissed

Hemant Rav Patel v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 May 2019CRLP/10602/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR where his name was absent but a similarly named Hemant was accused. Court held factual discrepancies cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction during investigation and dismissed petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without allowing quashing order; liberty granted to surrender and apply for bail if petitioner is summoned.

Hemant Rav Patel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10602 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Hemant Rav Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Singh,Deepak Bora Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned AGA for respondents 1 and 2; and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 16th March, 2018 registered as Case Crime No.02 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 66-B and 66-D of I.T. Act, 2000 at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Noida.

¶7

The allegations in the impugned first information report are to the effect that relevant data of bank/insurance company's customers were stolen and passed on to different sources as a consequence whereof, by sending calls to the customers, funds were being diverted to other accounts thereby creating loss to the customers as well as the bank/insurance company. Various mobile numbers and details have been given in the first information report in respect of such transaction and it has been stated that such transactions have been noticed by a large number of bank/insurance companies.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the impugned first information report discloses commission of cognizable offences but the name of the petitioner is conspicuous by its absence. Further, Hemant named in the first information report is not Hemant Rav Patel, that is the petitioner.

¶9

Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are factual in nature which cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction while the matter is under investigation and, therefore, in case the petitioner is wanted in the above case, the appropriate course for the petitioner is to surrender and apply for bail.

¶10

With the aforesaid liberty/observation the petition is disposed of .

¶11

Order Date :- 21.5.2019. Rks.

Hemant Rav Patel v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant Rav Patel 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apoorv Dixit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kirti Prakash @ Gagan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indrajit Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Vikrant and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abbal Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others