A criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and direction not to arrest the petitioners. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding the allegations clear and noting that civil litigation would impede speedy investigation.
No relief granted; writ petition for quashing of FIR 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. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3030 of 2020
Petitioner :- Kuldeep Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manu Khare Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Uma Nath Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri G.S.Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shishir Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant respondent no. 3.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 09.01.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 0026 of 2020 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar and also for direction to the opposite parties not to arrest them in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R.
The allegations in the first information report are of payment of Rs.33.75 crores to the petitioners/two accused persons for sale of residential plots. The allegations in the first information report are clear and categorical with regard to the payments made by the first informant to the accused persons.
Submission of the learned Senior Advocate, based on the supplementary affidavit dated 18.2.2020, are that three sale deeds dated 5.9.2014 and 11.4.2014 had been executed by the petitioners in favour of the first informant. But the first informant had in turn executed sale deeds in excess of the land purchased by him by including the land of the petitioners and as such, thirteen suits have been filed by the petitioners/accused persons for cancellation of sale deeds executed by the first informant.
The submission of the learned Senior Advocate is not convincing for the fact that it is categorically stated in the first information report that three transactions of 50 Lakh, 1 crore and 1.30 crores had been made through cheques dated 3.4.2018 by the first informant.
Neither any sale deed executed after the said date has been brought on record nor there is any averment in the above three
sale deeds that any sale consideration was due towards the purchaser/first informant. We, therefore, cannot take exception to the statement by the first informant in the first information report of non-execution of the sale deed despite money received by the petitioners/accused persons. As far as the civil litigations are concerned, we do not want to comment on that.
Looking to the allegations in the first information report, we do not find it a fit case for interference as any interference at this stage may impede the process of speedy investigation.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.3.2020 nd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this writ petition under Article 226 is a fit case for quashing the FIR and granting direction not to arrest the petitioners.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kuldeep Singh And Another
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Sunita Agarwal
Dinesh Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
