Dismissed

Mohd. Tahir and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2023CRLP/1784/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard a petition seeking quashing of an FIR involving allegations of forgery and cheating. The bench held that the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence and no case was made out for interference, dismissing the petition while leaving open the option for bail.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for quashing of the FIR was dismissed. The petitioner can apply for anticipatory bail before the competent court.

Mohd. Tahir and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1784 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Tahir And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devashish Mitra,Shivajee Singh Sisodiya

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mukesh Joshi

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shivajee Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the informant 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 16.9.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 389 of 2020 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kila, District Bareilly. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶8

Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 20.2.2023 supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶9

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

¶10

Crux of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing attention to various documents is that present case involves civil disputes, which is being given colour of a criminal case. It is next submitted that no offence has been made out as various official documents are already on record, which have been placed before this Court.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant submitted that incorrect three members committee report has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit and correct three members committee report has been annexed with the short counter affidavit. It was further pointed out that in the present case Kanoongo and his subordinate, who have not been named in the first information report, have already been arrested and in the first information report categorical allegation is that the forged documents were prepared by using forged stamps of government officials.

¶12

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which

¶13

discloses cognizable offence.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 22.3.2023 Lalit Shukla

¶17

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

Mohd. Tahir and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Tahir 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemant Tiwari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others