Disposed

Rajendra @ Raju Kesarwani and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2023CRLP/12156/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an FIR in a commercial dispute, holding that factual credibility requires investigation. The court remanded the matter for investigation and disposed of the petition without intervening in the criminal process.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with a direction to cooperate in the investigation.

Rajendra @ Raju Kesarwani and Another Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:157231-DB

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12156 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajendra @ Raju Kesarwani And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Srijan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Srijan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondents and also perused the record.

¶7

By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 5.7.2023 registered as Case Crime NO. 135 of 2023, under Sections 323, 406, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Khuldabad, District City (Commissionerate Prayagraj).

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is purely a proceeding initiated by the opposite party no. 2 to recover the amount.

¶9

We have perused the impugned FIR.

¶10

The aforesaid FIR was registered by Rachit Mandhyan making accused Suresh Bakshi, the broker, Rajendra @ Raju Kesharwani and his all the family members.

¶11

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners states that it is a case of commercial transaction between the contesting parties.

¶12

The Court has made an offer to the learned counsel for the petitioners to send the matter to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, but he insisted to decide the matter on merit.

¶13

All the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners contains the factual issue of the aspect, which could not be adjudicated in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

These allegations made by the learned counsel for the

¶15

petitioners are to be thrashed and put under the crucible of investigation and then I.O. of the case would come out with the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It is incumbent upon the petitioners to co-operate in the investigation and I.O. of the case shall furnish the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. within next sixty days.

¶16

It is made clear that we have not protected the interest of the petitioners and it is absolutely at the discretion of the I.O. to take appropriate action as provided under the law.

¶17

With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 4.8.2023 M. Tarik

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra @ Raju Kesarwani and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra @ Raju Kesarwani and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadeem and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jitendra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saurabh Gupta @ Tuntun and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramwati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brijesh @ Brijesh Pasi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt.Kiran Kaur Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others