Dismissed¶11

Rasul Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2023CRLP/1549/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 1549 of 2023; Rasul Ahmad v. State of U.P.; quashing of FIR refused; FIR dated 23.12.2022; Case Crime No. 895 of 2022; Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 385, 506 IPC; P.S. Dhumanganj, District Prayagraj; cognizable offence; Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; Neeharika Infrastructure AIR 2021 SC 1918; Leelavati Devi SLP (Crl.) No.3262/2021; petition dismissed 3.2.2023; Vivek Kumar Birla; Saurabh Srivastava.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the record, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are of serious nature and a cognizable offence is made out. ¶10

Rasul Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1549 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Rasul Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Azad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit annexing therewith a certified copy of the FIR filed today is taken on record.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 23.12.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 895 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 385, 506 IPC, P.S. Dhumanganj, District Prayagraj and for a direction to the respondents not to harass the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per bare perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out. The petitioner is neither the purchaser nor the seller of the deed. The allegations as levelled in the impugned FIR against the petitioner are false and frivolous.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence.

¶10

From perusal of the record, we find that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are of serious nature and a cognizable offence is made out. 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.

¶11

Present petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 3.2.2023/Vivek Kr.

¶13

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rasul Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasul Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Babita Tomar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shivansh Tomar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Neelam and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Mohd. Ismael Farukhee and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mitrapal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Seema Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others