Dismissed

Prem Narayan Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 May 2023CRLP/4980/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging cheating and forgery involving a property dispute. The court held that family relationship evidence is a matter for investigation and defaulting did not establish a civil suit colouring a criminal case under the Bhajanlal test.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; allowed to apply before competent court for bail/anticipatory bail.

Prem Narayan Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4980 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Prem Narayan Singh And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Parvesh Kumar Pandey,Sarvesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Bharti Mishra

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Parvesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Bharti Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sushil Kumar Jaiswal, learned State Law Officer for the State respondents.

¶6

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 09.03.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 0068 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Phoolpur, District Varanasi. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence has been made out against the petitioners and a civil dispute is being given colour of a criminal case and they have been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to draw attention of the Parivar Register to submit that petitioner no. 2 is wife of late Jokhan Lal Patel and the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are sons of late Jokhan Lal Patel and therefore it is only a property dispute and no offence has been committed. Attention was drawn to Parivar Register, Khatauni and Kisan Bahi in favour of the petitioners to contend that the petitioners are real owner of the property.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA pointed out that a bare glance over the first information report would clearly disclose that a cognizable offence has been made out. He further submits that as per instructions, substance is found in the first information report and a cognizable office has been made out.

¶9

We find that reference regarding Parivar Register that is being taken is matter of investigation and at the best can be defence of the petitioners which cannot considered for the purpose of quashing the FIR.

¶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 leaving it open for the petitioners to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.

¶13

Order Date :- 1.5.2023 Pratima

¶14

Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prem Narayan Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Narayan Singh and 3 Others 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

Mustafa Husain Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Mo. Aslam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pankaj Chaubey and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rohit Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others