Disposed

Harihar Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 May 2019CRLP/11607/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging cheating and forgery. The High Court rejected immediate quashing but directed continuation of investigation. Pending police report submission under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the petitioner shall not be arrested subject to cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to continue; no arrest of petitioner until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation.

Harihar Prasad Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11607 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Harihar Prasad Vishwakarma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Lal 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 A.G.A. for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 28.03.2019 registered as Case Crime No.398 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, P.S. Lanka, District Varanasi.

¶7

The allegation in the first information report is that the informant purchased a plot of land on 10.04.2006 from the petitioner through his power of attorney holder Hori Lal. It is alleged that when after retirement the informant collected bricks and construction material to raise constructions, the accused (the petitioner) came with 3-4 other persons and restrained the informant from raising constructions by claiming that the sale deed is a false document and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- for being allowed to raise construction. It is also alleged that the informant was threatened by the accused persons.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sale deed of which mention is there in the first information report has been given effect to in the revenue records as mutation has taken place and, therefore, it cannot be said that the sale deed is a false document. It has been submitted that in so far as the allegation regarding extension of threat is concerned, that is false and, in fact, there is dispute as regards demarcation of the portion sold to the petitioner.

¶9

Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects would have to be ascertained on the basis of material collected during the course of investigation and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the first information, at this stage, cannot be accepted.

¶10

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that the investigation of the case shall continue and brought to its logical conclusion but, subject to petitioner's cooperation in the investigation, he shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶11

Order Date :- 2.5.2019 AKShukla/-

Harihar Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harihar Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Mohd Nasir and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Khursheed and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Khalid and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gagiya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sunil Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mitthu @ Arjun @ Fauzi Yadav (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others