A criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed for quashing an FIR registered under Cheating and Forgery sections. The High Court held that the allegations discloses a cognizable offence and it was not a fit case for quashing.
The prayer for quashing the impugned FIR is refused and the writ petition is 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. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2847 of 2021
Petitioner :- Anta Singhal And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Arun Srivastav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and perused the record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. dated 07,01.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 28 2021,under Sections 420,467,468,471 I.P.C., Police StationLoni, District- Ghaziabad, with a further prayer not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the said F.I.R.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one sale deed was executed on 07.08.2006 in favour of the respondent no. 3 (Amit Kumar Jain) and other sale deed was executed on 24.09.2019 in favour of one Ratendra Kumar Jain. The petitioners are owner of the alleged property and they executed sale deed after receiving Rs. Eighty Seven Lacs, as such, the petitioners have not committed any forgery in order to grab the money of respondent no. 3, (Amit Kumar Jain), informant. The property was purchased by one Rakesh Kumar, petitioner no.1 from one Sunil Kumar ( Power of Attorney of Kabool Singh) through a registered sale deed dated 07.08.2006. The property in question does not belong to the Government vested land. He further submits that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged for the purposes of harassing the petitioners, hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Per Contra - learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of quashing of the impugned F.I.R. and argued that after getting Rupees Eighty Seven lacs, the petitioners have executed sale deed of the property in dispute in favour of respondent no.3 which actually belongs to the Government vested land. From allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., a cognizable offence is made against the petitioners, therefore, impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
From the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the
petitioners.
Considering facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we do not find it to be a fit case for quashing the impugned F.I.R., hence, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 6.4.2021 aks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Fire under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC is liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether a cognizable offence is made out from the allegations in the Fire.
Anta Singhal And 3 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Bachchoo Lal
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
