Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2020CRLP/8655/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a petition seeking quashment of an FIR under Section 392 IPC. Relying on the co-accused's confession which implicated the petitioner in a theft, the court held that prima facie involvement could not be ruled out, denying the claim of false implication arising from a money dispute.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing of the FIR was rejected. The petition was dismissed.

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8655 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Sonu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Petitioner-Sonu son of Brijmohan Bawariya has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of First Information Report dated 24.06.2019 lodged by respondent no.3 as Crime No.0319 of 2019 under Section 392 IPC at Police Station-Malpura, District-Agra.

¶6

Petitioner's contention is that he is a innocent person and has not committed any crime and his name has been falsely disclosed by the co-accused Raj Kumar Bawariya.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and co-accused Raj Kumar Bawariya were having shop of cloths, when some money dispute arose between them, as a result of which, co-accused Raj Kumar Bawariya after being arrested by the police has falsely implicated the present petitioner.

¶8

Learned AGA, Sri Gambhir Singh opposes the prayer for quashing of the impugned FIR on the basis of a written complaint of Prem Singh son of Ram Singh wherein, it is alleged that 3-4 unknown miscreants entered in the house of the complainant at about mid-night and started looting the goods in the house; under threat they could not offer any resistance to the miscreants, who took away silver and gold jewellery so also cash to the extent of Rs.7,000/-(seven thousand).

¶9

It has come on record that one of the co-accused was arrested along with goods mentioned in the FIR and the co-accused Raj Kumar Bawariya from whom, several objects like items of jewellery, mobile-phones of different make and some intoxicating substance were recovered.

¶10

In his confessional statement, Raj Kumar Bawariya admitted that jewellery items kept in packet no.1 were product of theft, which was committed by him along with his cousin brother Poonam son of Bhoop Singh Bawariya, Naresh son of Dharm Singh @ Dharma Builda Bawariya, whereas, items kept in another packet were obtained on theft in which his cousin brother Poonam, Kallu, Sonu son of Brijmohan Bawariya were accomplice to him and had given effect to the incident at Village-Basaiya, Raimal, Police Station-Malpura. Mobiles were snatched at different places in Agra.

¶11

He admitted that he was going to sale these items at Shahganj.

¶12

In view of such statements of Raj Kumar Bawariya, it is apparent that he admitted of committing burglary and has taken the name of the petitioner only in relation to one incident.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid, prima facie plea of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated on account of some business transaction is not made out.

¶14

It is a matter of investigation so as to connect the petitioner with the confessional statement of Raj Kumar Bawariya.

¶15

No sufficient ground is made out for quashing of the FIR, inasmuch as, prima facie involvement of the petitioner cannot be ruled out and confessional statement of co-accused can be used for collateral purposes so to confront the accused.

¶16

In view of such facts, petitioner has failed to make out a case for indulgence for quashing of the FIR, therefore, petition fails and is dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 12.10.2020 Ashutosh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu 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

Geeta Devi Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Bablu and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishnu Bhagwan Proprietor Trade Link Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Deependra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others