Disposed

Ajaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2020CRLP/10231/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the High Court refused to quash the First Information Report but granted an interim direction staying the petitioner's arrest until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., mandating police cooperation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; petitioner to cooperate with investigation within three months.

Ajaz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10231 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ajaz Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rizwan Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the State-Respondents.

¶6

The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the First Information Report dated 06.08.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 542 of 2020, under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned FIR.

¶7

The allegation in the impugned FIR lodged by the respondent no.4 is that the petitioner who is stated to be his Clerk has collected money from several persons which he has not returned. The respondent no.4 is stated to be a property dealer.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 03.12.2019 through Cheque No.607380, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/on 04.12.2019 through Cheque No.607381 from the account of his wife being A/C No.400100351800 to the account of the respondent no.4-Adnan and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.12.2019 through Cheque No.585377 from his own account being A/C No.100410102324 to the account of the respondent no.4 and therefore he cannot be said to be a wilful defaulter nor has he embezzled any money. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F. I. R. is liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the first information report cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶10

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioner, therefore, we do

¶11

not find any cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.

¶12

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 computerized/net copy of the order.

¶13

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶14

Order Date :- 6.10.2020 N Tiwari

Ajaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar @ Dharmendra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalyani @ Deeksha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dhirendra Singh Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anuj Kumar Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anuj Jain and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Farina Bi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others