Disposed

Noor Ahmad v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2021CRLP/7253/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR for cheating and damage to public property. The Court found the petitioner evading proceedings and having concealed criminal history, thus declining to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; Writ Petition disposed of as petitioner found to be absconding and having made deliberate attempt to withhold details of criminal proceedings.

Noor Ahmad Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7253 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Noor Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Sarwar Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Irshad Ahmad,S.K. Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Mohd. Sarwar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. Shri N.I. Zafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Irshad Ahmad appears for the complainant.

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the FIR dated 8.8.2021 in Case Crime No.0192 of 2021 under Section 419, 420, 469, 470 IPC & 2/3 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Mariahun, Distt. Jaunpur and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid FIR.

¶7

On the matter being taken up on 28.09.2021, the Court has proceeded to pass the following order:-

¶8

"Shri N.I.Zafri, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the complainant, raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition precisely on the ground that in para 22 of the writ petition, incorrect statement of fact has been mentioned, wherein, it has been mentioned that petitioner is not previously convicted in any criminal case having no criminal history at all except this criminal proceeding. Whereas, as per information furnished by the Incharge of Police StationMadiyahoo, District-Jaunpur, dated 20.08.2021, seven criminal cases, including the present one, is pending consideration, against the petitioner, and as such the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for furnishing wrong information on oath.

¶9

Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that some reasonable time may be accorded to him, so that the appropriate instructions/ affidavit may be filed in the matter.

¶10

On the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner case is passed over for today.

¶11

Put up this matter, as fresh, on 4th October, 2021, peremptorily."

¶12

In response to the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit bringing on record in para 8 the present status of the following criminal cases pending against the petitioner:-

¶13

"1. Year 2008 Criminal Revision No.855/2008 pending in this Hon'ble Court in which Hon'ble Court stayed the sessions trial no.467/2004.

¶14

2. Year 2012 Criminal Appeal No.178/2012 in which the petitioner has acquitted of charges on 19.01.2016.

¶15

3. Year 2016 Case Crime No.157/16 u/s 332, 353, 323, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Mariyahun Jaunpur, police has filed charge sheet in the court and the case is pending.

¶16

4. Year 2021 Complaint Case No.87/21 U/s 323 504, 506, 452, 427 IPC and 3 (1) da and 3 (1) dha SC & ST Act and this case is pending."

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has averred in para 2 & 6 of the supplementary affidavit that at the time of filing the present writ petition the petitioner omitted to state some material facts of this case, therefore, the petitioner brought the material facts through the supplementary affidavit. The deponent-petitioner apologizes for his mistake in paragraph 22 of the writ petition and has prayed that for this mistake the deponent is liable to forgive. He has not given wrong information or concealed the fact intentionally, deliberately about his criminal history. Lastly learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2021 Supreme (SC) 603, wherein Section 439 CrPC, 1973 has been considered qua to the categorisation of offence for grant of bail. As such it is submitted that since the offences in the present case are punishable below 7 years, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for indulgence by this Court.

¶18

Shri N.I. Zafri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant further makes submissions that FIR No.1175 of 2016 was also lodged by the Lekhpal for the same very charge, wherein even though entry has been expunged on which the petitioner claimed to be owner but he alienated the property in 2015. In the said proceeding the chargesheet has already been submitted to the competent court. It is alleged that in the said proceeding the petitioner is evading and even non-bailable has also been issued against the petitioner. He submits that the judgment of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) would not of any help to the petitioner as he is evading/ absconding from the criminal proceedings and as such he is not fulfilling the condition no.2 of requisite conditions enumerated in the judgment of Satender Kumar Antil (Supra), which provides "cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before the Investigating Officer whenever called."

¶19

The Court has proceeding to examine the record in question and find that deliberate attempt has been made before us by not giving the details of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Moreover once the petitioner is evading and absconding from the criminal proceedings, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is also not applicable in the present case and as such looking to the conduct of the petitioner the Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say, it is always open to the petitioner to invoke the remedy as available in law.

¶20

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶21

Order Date :- 8.12.2021 SP/

Noor Ahmad v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noor Ahmad 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

Nazim @ Bhura Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kallu @ Jahiruddin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mustak Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Siddiqui Isra Subhani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Garg and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Paridhi Garg Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others