Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in a business investment dispute. The Court held that banking transactions and merits of alleged fraud cannot be examined under Article 226 to avoid impeding investigation, and dismissed the writ petition.
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. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5851 of 2021
Petitioner :- Anil Sen And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shadab Alam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
The supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
By means of the present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the first information report dated 28.06.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0544 of 2019, under Sections 420 & 406 I.P.C., P.S.- Kasna, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar.
It is sought to be submitted by way of the supplementary affidavit that the petitioner no.1 has incorporated a proprietorship firm in the name of K.D.M. Enterprises with the GST Registration No.09BLCPS5442Q1ZC and the official address of the said firm is office number 19, 2nd Floor, GNS Plaza Site-4, Kasana, Greater Noida Gautam Buddha Nagar Uttar Pradesh.
It is admitted that the aforesaid firm was engaged in the business of hiring E-Scooter Taxis and in order to expand its business it had invited investment in exchange of E-Scooter which was asset of the firm. In the process of procuring investment, memorandum of understanding had been exchanged between the parties in the shape of agreement.
The copy of one of such agreement has been brought on record as annexure- 'S.A.-3' of the supplementary affidavit.
The contention is that the objective of the firm was to create business prospects and employment and it had not intended to defraud its creditors and for the matter of fact, the petitioner had not defrauded its creditors.
The assertion in the writ petition is that the bank statements of the respondent no.4 filed as annexure-'2' to the writ petition shows that the entire investment made by the respondent no.4 alongwith the profits had been transmitted in his account, the last payment being dated 04.05.2019.
For the above material, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations in the first information report are false.
Considering the above, we may note that there is no dispute about the fact that the respondent no.4 had invested certain money in the proprietorship firm created by the petitioner no.1. The transaction between the proprietorship firm and the respondent no.4 cannot be examined within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the merits and demerits of the allegations in the first information report cannot be seen at this stage.
Moreover, interference at this stage may impede the speedy investigation.
For the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 3.9.2021 Radhika
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash the FIR based on bank statements showing repayment of investment before proceeding to investigation.
Whether the merits of the criminal allegations can be judged within the scope of Article 226 at the stage of writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Sen
State Of U.P.
Sunita Agarwal
Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
