Disposed

Mohd. Aslam v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 May 2019CRLP/12312/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed quashing of FIR regarding counterfeit gold loans. It granted temporary protection against coercive action until investigation confirms petitioner evaluated the account, requiring cooperation until police report filing.

What did the court decide?

Protection from coercive action until I.A. ascertain petitioner did not evaluate account; cooperation required until Section 173(2) CrPC report.

Mohd. Aslam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12312 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Aslam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Singh 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 8th January, 2019 registered as Case Crime No.7 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A and 120-B IPC at Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

The allegations in the impugned first information report, which has been lodged by an officer of HDFC bank, are that gold loans were provided by the bank after obtaining report from its valuers, who certified the authenticity of the gold items, but, later, it was discovered that jewellery articles were counterfeit. The petitioner is one of gold valuer registered with the bank.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accounts in respect of which the allegations are there were not evaluated by the petitioner and that the allegations are absolutely false.

¶9

Be that as it may, the correctness of the allegations are not to be tested in the writ jurisdiction and, therefore, on the grounds raised, the impugned first information report cannot be accepted. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition by providing that before taking any coercive action against the petitioner, the Investigating Agency shall ascertain whether the petitioner had evaluated the disputed account/gold account or not. The aforesaid protection shall in no case be available after submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It is made clear that the petitioner would have to co-operate with the investigation and shall make himself available for interrogation as also for providing specimen signature as and when required by the Investigation Agency. A failure in that regard would be deemed non-cooperation and in that event no protection would be available to the petitioner.

¶10

Order Date :- 7.5.2019. Rks.

Mohd. Aslam v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Aslam 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

Rashid and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nazmin Bano and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Mamta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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