Dismissed

Suresh Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2023CRLP/16076/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging cheating and forgery associated with a civil dispute and political rivalry. The bench found no case for interference under relevant Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR and prayer not to arrest the petitioner was dismissed.

Suresh Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:207920-DB

¶2

Court No. - 45

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16076 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Phool Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard Phool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A for the State respondents.

¶7

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 21.09.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 0306 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Bhognipur, District Kanpur Dehat. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶8

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the present case involves civil dispute and even a suit for declaration is pending and the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry as the petitioner is the present village Pradhan. The allegation is being levelled that he has used forged signatures and stamps which is neither here nor there.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR and pointed out that petitioner has criminal history of 24 cases which includes two cases of under Section 302 IPC, two cases under the Gangster Act and under Section 364 IPC as well and two cases of identical nature have involved in the present case and as such no indulgence is made out.

¶10

Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence.

¶11

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.

¶12

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 30.10.2023 A. Tripathi

¶14

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suresh Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chandra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Raj Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shivani Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Karan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramjan Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Ajij @ Ajij Mohd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ziyaul Haq Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others