Dismissed

Harendra Bashishta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2023CRLP/10287/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and held that no grounds existed for quashing. The court noted the petitioner's failure to participate in mediation and honor a prior settlement, applying the Bhajan Lal test.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as no ground for quashing existed; open for petitioner to apply for anticipatory bail.

Harendra Bashishta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191444-DB

¶2

Court No. - 46

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10287 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Harendra Bashishta And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Amit Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhishek Kumar Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶6

This petition has filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report in Case Crime No.227 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Beeta-2, DistrictGautam Buddh Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the respondent points out that the writ petitioner, in respect of identical grievance has filed another writ petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13024 of 2023, which has been disposed of vide following order passed on 25.08.2023:-

¶8

"1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶9

2. Heard Sri A.K. Mishra, holding brief of Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vivek Dubey, State Law Officer the State respondents and Sri Bhavisya Sharma, learned counsel for the informant.

¶10

3. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 14.7.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 357 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Beta 2, District Gautam Budh Nagar. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶11

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a bare glance over the impugned first information report would clearly reflect that this is the dispute between the builder and the allottees of the flat purchased by them and the present FIR has been filed by filing an application under Section 156 CrPC. It is submitted that it is because of the notice from the villagers and farmers aggrieved, construction on the site did not commence. It is further submitted that admittedly several disputes including the disputes under the provisions of UP RERA were raised. It is further submitted that large number of petitions challenging the FIR have been referred to mediation for compromise.

¶12

5. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence. It is submitted that in large number of cases before the Mediation Centre, the petitioners have not appeared and in one of the cases an interim settlement dated 14.2.2023 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5 of 2023 was entered into but the same is also not being honoured. He further pointed out that the disposal of the various petitions in view of the submission of the final reports by the Investigating Officer is also misconceived, inasmuch as, on the issue being raised before the Commissioner of Police in the case of final reports, the matter has been directed to be further investigated and the final reports were not forwarded to the competent court. Submission is that throughout the country such first information reports are being lodged and one FIR is also pending investigation before the Economic Offences Wing (EOW). Submission, therefore, is that a bare glance over the FIR would clearly reflect that a cognizable offence is made out.

¶13

6. Learned AGA has also opposed the petition.

¶14

7. On perusal of the record, we find that a cognizable offence has been made out and despite of the matters having been referred to Mediation Centre, the petitioners are not coming forward for the purpose of Mediation and even the interim settlement is not being honoured.

¶15

8. In such view of the matter, we do not find any good ground to exercise our power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

9. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.

¶17

10. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.

¶18

11. In view of the fact that large number of such first information reports have been lodged wherein Commissioner of Police himself directed for further investigation and final reports have not been forwarded to the competent Court, we direct the learned AGA to send a copy of this order to the Commissioner of Police, District Gautam Budh Nagar for ensuring fair investigation in the present case as large number of innocent allottees who have paid the substantial amount are suffering."

¶19

Allegations being similar, this petition is also disposed of on the above terms.

¶20

Order Date :- 5.10.2023 SP/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harendra Bashishta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra Bashishta and 2 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Madan Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Bhaiya Lal Y Another Vs State of U.P.

Masroor Khan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Asha Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd Rizwan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others