Dismissed

Nihal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2020CRLP/3868/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under various IPC sections alleging cheating and forgery. The Full Bench relied on established precedents to hold that a prima facie cognizable offence was made out, precluding interference. However, the petitioner was allowed to apply for bail within thirty days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to apply for bail within thirty days upon appearing before the concerned court.

Nihal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3868 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Nihal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.3/informant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the documents on record.

¶6

The petitioner in the present writ petition is seeking quashing of the FIR dated 28.01.2020 registered as Case Crime no. 74 of 2020 under sections 413, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station New Agra, District Agra with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the said FIR.

¶7

The facts of the case, as per the FIR are that the informant is a partner in M/s Shri Balveer Singh Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd, Malpura, Agra. The allegation is that the petitioner was his neighbour and known to the informant and on this account he used to keep the sacks of potatoes in the cold storage of the informant for which he has paid two cheques of Rs. 25 lacs and Rs. 24 lacs to the informant but subsequently the petitioner had stopped the payment of those cheques. Allegation further is that he has fraudulently and on the basis of forged bill brought out more sacks of potatoes from the cold storage of the informant without his knowledge.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier also the informant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 10.01.2017, pursuant to which an FIR dated 23.02.2017 registered as Case Crime no. 141 of 2017 under Section 413, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 IPC, P.S. Malpura, District Agra was lodged against the petitioner containing similar allegations as has been made in the present impugned FIR. It is further submitted that in the earlier case charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner on 5.4.2017 and the impugned FIR has been lodged on the basis of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. containing similar allegations only to harass the petitioner. Lastly, it is submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed on the basis of false allegations made against him while prima facie no cognizable offence is made

¶9

out pursuant to the FIR lodged by the respondent no.3. Hence the FIR deserves to be quashed.

¶10

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.

¶11

The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., 2006 (56)ACC 433 reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P ., 2000 Cr.L.J. 569, after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the FIR or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.

¶12

From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioner.

¶13

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶14

However, it is provided that if the petitioner appears or surrenders before the Court concerned within thirty days from today and apply for bail in the aforesaid case, his prayer for bail shall be considered by the court below expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.3.2020 Kirti

Nihal Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nihal Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jhinku Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tejas Verma @ Tejas @ Banti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Atul Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajiv Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ghanshyam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Moijurrab @ Lala and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others