The High Court refused to quash the FIR in a cheating case, noting disclosure of a cognizable offence. However, it directed continued investigation without arresting the petitioner pending submission of the final police report.
FIR not quashed; investigation to continue; no arrest of petitioner pending police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7421 of 2019
Petitioner :- Kuldeep Tomar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Mishra,Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 26.02.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 77 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar.
The impugned First Information Report has been lodged naming 11 persons including the petitioner. The allegations are in respect of defrauding investors after inviting deposits from them. The petitioner filed this petition by claiming that he is neither an employee nor a Director or office bearer in the company and, therefore, he has no role in defrauding the investors.
On 28.03.2019, after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, following order was passed:-
"In paragraph 9 of the petition, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner has neither taken money nor he is an employee of the Company, which has allegedly defrauded the investors.
In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to require the learned A.G.A. to seek instructions from the police station concerned as to whether the petitioner has been an employee/director/office bearer in the Company concerned or not, as also whether there is any evidence to suggest that there had been money transfer in the account of the petitioner by either the investors or the Company, which has defrauded the investors.
Such instructions may be obtained by 4th April, 2019.
Put-up this matter on 4th April, 2019. "
Pursuant to the order dated 28.03.2019, an affidavit of compliance has been filed by the Investigating Officer.
In Paragraph 5 & 6 of the said affidavit, though it has not been stated that the petitioner had been an employee in the company or an office bearer/ Director in the company but it is claimed that he had assured the investors.
In what capacity the petitioner had assured the investors, is not disclosed.
In view of the above, though we refused to quash the FIR, as it discloses commission of cognizable offence, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that investigation of above noted case shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion, but, subject to petitioners' co-operation in the investigation, the petitioner shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. in the aforesaid case.
O rder Date :- 12.4.2019 Vibha Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal FIR under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC requires quashing given the petitioner's denial of being an employee or director of the concerned company.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kuldeep Tomar
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Manoj Misra
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
