Remanded

Laxmi Das v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2024CRLP/2072/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the Allahabad High Court examined a plea for quashing an FIR alleging cheating and forgery related to property sale and dual guru declaration. The court refused quashing, passed an interim order restraining arrest, and directed filing of a counter affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Case remanded for filing of detailed counter affidavits; interim stay on arrest granted pending investigation.

Laxmi Das vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2072 of 2024 Petitioner :- Laxmi Das Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others

¶3

Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dr. Pooja Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and Dr. Pooja Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.4.

¶6

By means of this petition, petitioner has sought quashing of First Information Report dated 14.7.2023 bearing FIR/Case Crime No.0177 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC, registered at Police Station Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, and the order dated 27.2.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has sold his own property and not the property belonging to any group or any Math.

¶8

Learned counsel for the complainant states that petitioner is showing himself as Chela of two different Gurus and the same itself is an offence.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant could not show as to under which provision of law, a declaration by a person as Chela of two different Gurus is an offence. So far as the property is concerned, the same does not belong to any Math, but the same belongs to the petitioner. Therefore, a case for interference is made out.

¶10

Let a detailed counter affidavit be filed by the opposite parties within four weeks.

¶11

List after four weeks.

¶12

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that the petitioner shall not be arrested on the basis of the impugned First Information Report, unless sufficient and credible evidence is available against him. The petitioner shall, however, cooperate in the investigation and get his statement recorded before the

¶13

Investigating Officer as and when he is called. If he does not do so, then it can be made a ground for seeking vacation of this interim order.

¶14

[Narendra Kumar Johari,J.] [Vivek Chaudhary,J.]

¶15

Order Date :- 3.4.2024 Sachin

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Laxmi Das v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Das v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepak Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Ashif @ Mohd. Ashif Khan and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Munendra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Nazibul Rahim Khan and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Raman Sahni and Another vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Radhey Shyam and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Others