Disposed

Mukesh Kumar Mathur v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2019CRLP/6247/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that while the FIR discloses a cognizable offence, the petitioner's case is distinct as no specific fabrication is alleged against him. The petition was disposed of by staying the arrest of the petitioner pending submission of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed by staying the petitioner's arrest till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, subject to cooperation.

Mukesh Kumar Mathur 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. - 6247 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Mathur Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Virendra Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned AGA for the respondents 1 and 2; Sri Virendra Singh for respondent no.3; and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of first information report dated 16th February, 2019, registered as Case Crime No.96 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 504, 506 and 120-B I.P.C. at police station Medical College, district Meerut.

¶7

The allegation in the impugned first information report is that the informant and his family members had invested funds in M/s. Shubham Construction upon promise of good return but the money was not returned and, later, it transpired that the company was a bogus firm in the sense that Bhaneshwar Yadav, who was portrayed as one of the partners in the firm, was actually a Junior Engineer employed in Gramin Abhiyantran Department, Meerut and he had been running the firm in the name of his wife Meena Yadav. The allegation as against the petitioner is that he was working as a Manager in the said firm M/s. Shubham Construction.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly the firm does not belong to the petitioner and as per the allegation, the petitioner himself is an employee. It has been submitted that although in the first information report it is alleged that certain forged and fabricated document was shown to the informant on the basis of which the informant and his family invested in the firm but it has not been specifically disclosed as to what were those documents. It has been submitted that under the circumstances, the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from other accused.

¶9

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submitted that the allegation disclose commission of cognizable offence and therefore the prayer of the petitioner to quash the first information report cannot be accepted.

¶10

Having considered the rival submissions, it cannot be said that the impugned first information report does not disclose commission of cognizable offence. To what extent

¶11

the petitioner is involved in the crime would depend on the material collected during the course of investigation. As it is alleged that the petitioner is Manager in that construction firm and it is not specifically disclosed that the petitioner has fabricated any specific document or had utilized any fabricated document, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition by providing that investigation of the above case shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion but subject to petitioner's co-operation in the investigation, he shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC.

¶12

It is made clear that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation and for providing specimen signature, etc. as and when required by the Investigating Officer. Any failure in that regard would be deemed non-cooperation in the investigation and in that scenario the protection as granted above would not be available.

¶13

Order Date :- 11.4.2019. Rks.

Mukesh Kumar Mathur v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Mathur 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

Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arun Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rameshwar Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pooja Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Boby and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amitabh Mukharji and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others