Disposed

Honey Jain v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2019CRLP/3368/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging cheating and forgery. It held that allegations could not be ignored to deny cognizable offence. However, it directed police not to arrest the petitioner until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. provided full cooperation is shown.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not to be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Honey Jain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3368 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Honey Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Sharma,Baldev Raj Sahdev,Shri G.S. Chaturvedi (Sr. Advt.) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Shri G.S.Chaturvedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri Ashutosh Sharma, for the petitioner and Shri A.N.Mulla, the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 25.1.2018 registered as Case Crime No.85 of 2018 under sections 419,420,467,468 and 471 I.P.C, P.S. Chakeri District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

The F.I.R dated 25.1.2018 alleges that there existed a joint venture between the informant and late husband of the petitioner i.e real brothers, of jointly running a petrol pump since 1982 but in 2001 late brother, resorted to forgery/manipulation by setting up a deed of dissolution and an alleged resignation of the informant, to start a same business with his wife (petitioner).

¶8

It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the new venture between the petitioner and her late husband has no nexus with the erstwhile business between the two real brothers, the informant remained a mute spectator for almost 17 years speaks volumes of the hollowness of the F.I.R, dispute if any, is civil in nature, criminality is deliberately assigned for ulterior motives, F.I.R, be quashed.

¶9

Learned A.G.A, opposed the submissions and on the basis of the allegations made in the F.I.R, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioner.

¶10

After having heard learned counsel for the parties

¶11

and perusing the impugned F.I.R, we are not inclined to quash the same.

¶12

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, subject to their extending full co-operation during investigation. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.2.2019 RS

Honey Jain v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Honey Jain 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

Harimohan Vs State of U.P. and 19 Others

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

Ganga Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Inder Mani Verma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Keshav Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others