Dismissed

Bharat and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2019CRLP/7371/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court was approached to quash an FIR alleging revenue fraud. The court adjourned the quashing petition, directing that investigation continue and arrest be stayed until the police reports is submitted, provided petitioners cooperate with interrogation and specimen signature collection.

What did the court decide?

Investigation ordered to continue; arrest stayed subject to cooperation in interrogation and specimen signature provision until police report submission.

Bharat and 3 Others 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. - 7371 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Bharat And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Singh,Pushkar Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1 and 2 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the impugned first information report dated 14.05.2010, registered as Case Crime No.464 of 2010, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Madihan, District Mirzapur.

¶7

The allegation in the impugned first information report alleges fraudulent/fabricated entries in the revenue record to show that the accused had lawful claim over the plots when, otherwise, those plots were State property. The FIR names 18 persons including the Lekhpal and those whose name was found entered.

¶8

It appears that the Lekhpal who made entries died, therefore, initially, after investigation, the matter resulted in a final report but now further investigation is pending.

¶9

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that although the entries in the revenue records were in the name of the petitioners but the petitioners are not residents of the village concerned and they at no point in time were in possession of the land concerned. With reference to averments made in paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the petition, it has been submitted that there is also no material on record to suggest that the petitioners at any point of time dealt with the property entered in the revenue records. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that admittedly the records in which the entries were fabricated was not in possession or under the control of the petitioners and therefore for making those entries, the petitioners cannot be held directly responsible.

¶10

On 25.03.2019, we required the learned A.G.A. to seek instructions from the police concerned as regards the current

¶11

status of the investigation and the material collected against the petitioners during the course of the investigation.

¶12

The learned A.G.A. has pointed out that some material has been found against the petitioners and, therefore, an application has been moved before the Court concerned to obtain process against the petitioners for securing their presence.

¶13

The learned A.G.A., however, could not point out existence of any material which may demonstrate that the petitioners had been in possession of the property concerned or had dealt with the property concerned at any point in time.

¶14

Under the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this writ petition by providing that the investigation of the above case shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion but subject to the co-operation of the petitioners in the investigation they shall not be arrested till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶15

It is made clear that to ensure co-operation of the petitioners in the investigation, it is provided that the petitioners shall be available for interrogation and for providing specimen signature etc. as and when required by the Investigating Officer. If they do not make themselves available for interrogation or for providing specimen signature, etc., the protection, as directed above, shall not be available to them or to any one of them who does not co-operate.

¶16

O rder Date :- 10.4.2019 m.a.

Bharat and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat and 3 Others 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

Javed Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Dubey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chhotey Lal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Goyal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vinay Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Latafat Khan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others