Dismissed

Sachin Jain and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2023CRLP/501/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 409/506 IPC. Prima facie disclosure of a cognizable offence precluded interference. Expressly left door open for anticipatory bail. Directed mediation centre to release disputed funds to respondent.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; leave given to apply for anticipatory bail; direction to Mediation Centre to release money to respondent no. 5.

Sachin Jain and Another Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 501 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Sachin Jain And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Udai Chandani,Prajyot Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Keshari Nath Tripathi,Mohammad Danish,Mukhtar Alam,Saif Ali Khan

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and learned A.G.A for the State respondents.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 4.1.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 9 of 2023 under Sections 409 and 506 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶8

Vide order dated 24.1.2023 the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court. The parties have appeared before the Mediation Centre on the first date, however, the petitioners have failed to appear before the Mediation Centre on the next date. This fact is admitted to learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

In the order dated 24.1.2023 it has been categorically provided that "It is clear that in case there occurs default by the petitioners either in depositing the amount or in appearing before the Mediation Centre on the date fixed, the interim order shall cease to operate and the Mediation Centre shall immediately communicate with the office which in turn shall list the case within a week before the appropriate Bench for passing orders in the matter".

¶10

Now the admitted fact is that the petitioner no. 1 has already been arrested.

¶11

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that now he is pressing present petition in respect of petitioner no. 2 only and submits that he is only the father of the petitioner no. 1 and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case, whereas the

¶12

allegations are against the petitioner no. 1-Sachin Jain only. Submission is that no offence has been made against the petitioner no. 2, therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed.

¶13

Per contra, Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel appearing for the informant has opposed the prayer.

¶14

Learned AGA also opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence and submits that on being found that a cognizable offence has been made out, the petitioner no. 1 has already been arrested and therefore, there is no occasion to grant any indulgence to the petitioner no. 2.

¶15

We find substance in the argument of learned A.G.A.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

At this stage, Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel for the informant submits that vide order dated 24.1.2023 Mediation Centre of this Court was directed to release Rs. 40,000/- to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 on the date fixed for their appearance before the Mediation Centre, however, the same has not been paid.

¶19

In such view of the matter, Mediation Centre is directed to release the amount in favour of the respondent no. 5 or his authorized agent.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.3.2023 Lalit Shukla

¶21

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

Sachin Jain and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Jain and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 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

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

Khushbu Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jagat Narayan Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others