Disposed

Shyam Sunder v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2019CRLP/1245/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the Hon'ble Court observed that as the matter is under investigation with NBWs obtained, the petition for quashing the FIR is disposed of by directing the Investigating Officer to examine if the disputed cheques were drawn on the petitioner's account and if the writing was genuine.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of by directing the Investigating Officer to examine whether the disputed cheques were drawn on the petitioner's bank accounts and whether the writing on the cheques is o

Shyam Sunder Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1245 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shyam Sunder Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶5

Instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 18.5.2017, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 544 of 2017 at P.S. Kaptanganj, District Basti, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC.

¶6

Allegation, in the FIR, is to the effect that accused (petitioner), who happens to be driver of a Member of Parliament, on assurances that he would provide employment, collected sums of money from various persons, and when job could not be provided and money was demanded back, cheques were issued for repayment of the money; and when those cheques were deposited, they got dishonoured.

¶7

Allegation, if taken at their face value, would disclose commission of cognizable offence and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the FIR is not acceptable.

¶8

However, the petitioner has submitted that the alleged cheques mentioned in the FIR were never drawn by the petitioner and petitioner does not have any bank account in any of those banks on whom the said cheques were drawn and, therefore, the allegations are nothing but false.

¶9

As the matter is under investigation, the above aspect could be examined by the Investigating Officer. We have been informed by the learned AGA, who has also filed a short counter affidavit pursuant to our order dated 21.1.2019, that in this case NBWs have been obtained against the petitioner from the court and proceeding under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has also been initiated.

¶10

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this writ petition by observing that the Investigating Officer shall examine whether the disputed cheques were drawn on any of the Bank accounts maintained by the petitioner in any concerned bank or not as also whether the writing on the said cheques is of the petitioner. In case, it is the case of the informant that the petitioner delivered cheques of some body else's account and had deliberately written on those cheques in such a manner so that his writing may not be verifiable, then that aspect shall also be investigated by the Investigating Officer so that the police report submitted is comprehensive.

¶11

With aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off.

¶12

Order Date :- 7.2.2019 RavindraKSingh

Shyam Sunder v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder 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

Smt. Kamini @ Kammo an D Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Akbar Ali and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nisha Naaz Alias Anuradha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sandeep Kumar @ Jaiki Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lalu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramshri Alias Chunbuddi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others