Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging false implication in sales disputes involving share plots. The court held petitioner failed to meet criteria under Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, dismissing the writ petition.
Quashing of the FIR dated 06.06.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0597 of 2018 was dismissed.
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. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10143 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shailesh Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Dr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.
Petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashing of the FIR dated 06.06.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0597 of 2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC at Police StationTajganj, District-Agra on the ground that petitioner is not named in the FIR and FIR has been lodged only against one Subhash Yadav and Bavallah, who are real brothers whereas the petitioner has no concern with them.
It is submitted that petitioner was Secretary of Shiv Gramin Sehkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Agra in the year 2008 and as a Secretary, he had sold plot no. 46, which was in possession of the petitioner, to his member namely, Subhash Yadav and it is in fact, Subhash Yadav, who is residing on plot no. 46 and informant has nothing to do with the said plot. It is submitted that allegations in the FIR are false, frivolous and concocted.
Learned AGA, in his turn, submits that matter is under investigation. Petitioner is an important link in the chain of events inasmuch as allegation is that petitioner has deliberately sold plot no. 46 in favour of Subhash Yadav and Bavallah despite the fact that said plot was already registered in favour of the informant by the predecessors of the petitioner and therefore, no indulgence is required at this stage.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and applying the ratio of law laid down in case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC Supl. (1) SCC 335 , petitioner has failed to make out a case for quashing of the FIR in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.11.2020 Vikram/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner establishes a case for the quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC or Section 438 CrPC.
Whether the allegations in the FIR are false, frivolous, and concocted warranting the quashing of the criminal proceeding.
Whether the petitioner is an essential link in the chain of events necessitating judicial intervention at the investigation stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and Others vs. Chaudhary Bhajan LalReferred¶9
State of Haryana and Others vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC Supl. (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Shailesh Upadhyay
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Naqvi
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
