Disposed

Krishn Bihari Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2019CRLP/28443/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition to quash an FIR alleging financial fraud via forgery. While the FIR discloses a cognicable offence requiring investigation, the court directed the agency to verify the authenticity of the alleged forged power of attorney regarding the bank account before arresting the petitioner, provided he cooperates in the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to investigate agency to ascertain authenticity of alleged forged power of attorney before arresting the petitioner, subject to his full cooperation; investigation to continue logically.

Krishn Bihari Chaturvedi 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. - 28443 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Krishn Bihari Chaturvedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalit Kumar Shukla,Laxmi Narayan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,A.K. Mishra,Suresh Chandra Pandey

¶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 and 2; and Sri S.C. Pandey for the respondent no.3; and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 12.09.2018 registered as Case Crime No.1159 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura.

¶7

The allegation in the impugned first information report is that the informant and the accused (the petitioner) had set up a partnership firm by the name of M/s K.B. Chaturvedi and Associates. It is alleged that both partners had 50% share in the partnership. A partnership Account No.37704364794 was opened at State Bank of India, Branch Krishna Nagar, Mathura, on 16.05.2018. It is alleged that the intention of the accused was dishonest from the very beginning and therefore he opened a separate account of the partnership at Andhra Bank, Branch Dampiyar Nagar, Mathura which was exclusively operated by the petitioner on the basis of a forged power of attorney which was never executed by the informant. It is alleged that proceeds payable to the firm were fraudulently diverted to that account to the tune of Rs.16,76,060/- and, thereafter, the accused fraudulently transferred the money to several of his relatives account thereby causing loss to the informant. It is also alleged that to enable opening of account at Mathura there had been manipulation in documents to show the address of the firm at Mathura in place of Mumbai.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the partnership deed enabled the

¶9

person incharge of the branch office to operate and control the bank account of that place. It has been submitted that, admittedly, the petitioner (the accused) was a resident of Mathura, therefore, by virtue of Clause 3 of the partnership firm, he could control the bank operations in respect of the branch office at Mathura. It has also been contended that there is no evidence to suggest that the bank account at Mathura was opened on the basis of a forged power of attorney.

¶10

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the allegations clearly reveal that a forged power of attorney was submitted for the purposes of opening bank account in Andhra Bank and through that account, partnership receipt to the tune of Rs.16,76,060/was transferred to that account as a consequence of which, there was a defalcation of funds of the partnership.

¶11

Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, we are of the view that as the allegations made in the impugned first information report disclose commission of cognizable offence, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the impugned first information report cannot be accepted.

¶12

It may also be observed that, on 09.10.2018, the Court had referred the matter to the Mediation Centre for exploring possibility of a settlement between the parties.

¶13

Pursuant to the reference order, the Mediation Centre has submitted a report that the mediation process was completed but no agreement could be arrived at between the parties.

¶14

In view of the above, as the impugned first information report discloses commission of cognizable offence, the matter would have to be investigated and therefore the prayer of the petitioner to quash the impugned first information report cannot be accepted.

¶15

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not mandatory to arrest an

¶16

accused during the pendency of the investigation more so when it can be ascertained with the help of documents whether the bank account in Andhra Bank, as alleged in the impugned first information report, was opened on the basis of power of attorney or not and whether that power of attorney was forged or not.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that the investigating agency before proceeding to arrest the petitioner in the above case shall ascertain whether the alleged Bank Account was opened on the basis of forged documents or not. The above protection shall in no case be available after submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It is also made clear that the above protection would be available only if the petitioner cooperates in the investigation and makes himself available for interrogation and provide specimen signature, etc. as and when required by the investigating agency. It is further made clear that there is no restriction on investigation and the same shall be brought to its logical conclusion.

¶18

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition is disposed of .

¶19

Order Date :- 24.4.2019 AKShukla/-

Krishn Bihari Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishn Bihari Chaturvedi 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

Shanu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

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

Vishwajeet Alias Rantu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jagdish Prasad Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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