Dismissed

Mohammad Yusuf v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2021CRLP/3813/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR alleging fraud. The Court held that since specific allegations in the FIR were not categorically denied by the petitioner and a cognizable offence appeared clear, the petition lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Mohammad Yusuf Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3813 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohammad Yusuf Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Sahab Yadav,M J Akhtar,Shiv Kumar Gupta

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,M J Akhtar,Santosh Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

The petitioner herein seeks for quashing of the FIR dated 01.03.2021 registered as Case Crime No.0342 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S- Sahibabad, District-Ghaziabad.

¶8

The allegations in the first information report regarding fraud committed by the petitioner are clear and categorical.

¶9

It is categorically stated by the complainant that the petitioner, who is a builder had entered into an agreement with the complainant for sale of a flat at the second floor of the building in question. It is, then, contended that instead of providing possession of the second floor, possession of the third floor had been given to the petitioner which itself is disputed. It is then contended that the building had been constructed by the petitioner without following the building norms and for this reason an order of demolition had been passed by the competent authority.

¶10

To contradict the said averments, learned counsel for the respondent places paragraph-'14' of the short counter affidavit filed on 08.07.2021, which reads as under:-

¶11

"14. That the petitioner has also played fraud by selling the same flats which was sold in favour of the petitioner by showing the same as second floor flats in favour of one Smt. Tahira Begum to the best knowledge of the deponent, she has also taken the loan from the bank by showing her flat at second floor, the possession of the same was also given to her by the petitioner."

¶12

The specific averments in paragraph- '14' of the short counter affidavit have not been categorically denied by the petitioner. The reply to the same in paragraph-'13' of the rejoinder affidavit reads as under:-

¶13

"13. That, the contents of paragraph No. 14 of the counter affidavit are admitted, hence denied."

¶14

In absence of the categorical denial on the part of the petitioner to the specific averment in paragraph-'14' of the short counter affidavit of the respondent no.4, we do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the averments in the first information report are false.

¶15

Moreover, the merits and demerits of the report cannot be seen within the scope of the writ jurisdiction.

¶16

From a bare reading of the first information report, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out.

¶17

No case is made out for interference.

¶18

The writ petition is, thus, found devoid of merit and, hence, dismissed .

¶19

Order Date :- 1.9.2021 Radhika

¶20

Digitally signed by SUNITA Digitally signed by Sadhna Rani AGARWAL Thakur Date: 2021.09.07 13:22:41 IST Date: 2021.09.07 13:23:28 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad

Mohammad Yusuf v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Yusuf 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

Yogesh Kumar Vs the Court of Special Judge and 3 Others

Smt. Ruby and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

prof. akhilesh kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Salman Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mantasa and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others