Disposed

Mohan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2019CRLP/8156/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash an FIR alleging cheating and forgery. It directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., requiring police to conclude investigation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner shall not be arrested until submission of police report; police to conclude investigation within three months.

Mohan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8156 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Juned Alam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No. 0058 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272 I.P.C. and Sections 102 and 103 Trade Mark Act, 1999, P.S. Sewarahi, district-Kushi Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; matter needs deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶9

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶10

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, petitioner shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and police authorities shall conclude the investigation within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 2.4.2019 Faridul

Mohan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan 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

Sandeep Vaswani and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Nand Kishor and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bahadur @ Ram Bahadur and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sameek Yadav Alias Sameek Alias Chilli Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Indrawati and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others