Dismissed

Krishna Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2023CRLP/3579/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R. The court held that the bank complaint is part of the F.I.R., which prima facie discloses offences under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, thus no case for interference is made out.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner was left open to apply for anticipatory bail or bail.

Krishna Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:142881-DB

¶2

Court No. - 45

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3579 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Krishna Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in the Court today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Shishir Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 24.12.2022 registered as Case Crime No. RC1202022A0018 of 2022, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C. & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- ACB Ghaziabad, District- Ghaziabad. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare reading of the first information report does not disclose any offence. He next submits that the petitioner herein is only a guarantor and the loan was provided to the proprietor of two firms, namely, M/s P.K. Construction and M/s Pradip Retailers under the proprietorship of Pradip Kumar Singh and there being a default, proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were also initiated and it is only thereafter one first information report was lodged by Sanjiv Jain stating that a property at Plot No. J-47, Sector18, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Noida, mortgaged to the Bank of Maharashtra, was sold to him, thus, irregularity was found and a complaint was made. The Central Bureau of Investigation has lodged the first information report without disclosing the allegations merely by annexing the complaint of the bank with the first information report which is not maintainable. He further submits that the

¶10

petitioner being a guarantor has not committed any offence and only his liability as guarantor can be invoked towards breach of loan agreement for non-payment of loan. He also submits that no offence u/s 120-B I.P.C. or Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is made out against the petitioner. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1197.

¶11

Per contra, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation submits that there is no prescribed format for lodging of the first information report and the complaint running into five pages is annexed with the first information report which is part and parcel of the first information report, a reading whereof clearly discloses offence as mentioned in the first information report. He next submits that the petitioner is a guarantor and Pradip Kumar Singh is his son who is proprietor of the firm and the permission to mortgage dated 10.12.2012 taken from the Bank of Maharashtra was found to be forged. Submission, therefore, is that cognizable offence has been made out and involvement of the petitioner in the light of Section 120-B I.P.C. has to be ascertained during investigation which is prima facie made out from the reading of the complaint, cannot be interfered with at this stage. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following cases :

¶12

(i) Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2019 Supreme Court 847

¶13

(ii) Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2018 Supreme Court 314

¶14

(iii) Sushil Suri Vs. C.B.I. & Anr., AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1713

¶15

At this stage, on perusal of the first information report, we find that the complaint running into five pages filed by the bank is clearly enclosed with the first information report and a satisfaction has been recorded by the Central Bureau of Investigation that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offence punishable u/s 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C. & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶16

In such view of the matter, we cannot say that the complaint annexed with the first information report impugned herein is not part and parcel of the first information report. We further find that although oral submission has been made that complaint cannot be treated as part of the first information report, however, there is no such ground taken in the entire petition and even if such argument is entertained, we find that it is a settled law that first information report is nothing but a bundle of facts and it is not necessary that it has to be in a particular fashion or manner. There is specific reference to the complaint enclosed with the first information report. Therefore, there is no defect in lodging of the first information report and from the perusal of the record, it is admitted fact that Pradip Kumar Singh is son of the petitioner herein who stood guarantor of the loan granted to his son. Allegation is that the documents applied to the bank were fabricated documents. In such view of the matter, a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.7.2023 KS

¶20

Digitally signed by :- KISHAN SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishna Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Pratap Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deependra Singh Tomar and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandeep Bahal (Sandeep Bahala) Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Om Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manali Rathore and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others