Sher Khan vs State of Up and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Sher Khan vs State of Up and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None substantive: FIR not quashed and no arrest-protection mandamus issued; petitioner left free to apply before the competent court for bail/anticipatory bail, with contentions expressly left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned FIR dated 09.11.2024 (Case Crime No.331 of 2024, P.S. Kutubsher, District Saharanpur) under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. should be quashed and the petitioner protected from arrest in relation to it.

Court's answer

The correctness of the allegations in the FIR would have to be tested on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335), Neeharika Infrastructure (AIR 2021 SC 1918), SLP (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi) and Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024 / SLP (Crl.) No. 10913 of 2023 (Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi), no case has been made out for interference with the impugned FIR.

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to apply before the competent court for bail/anticipatory bail in accordance with law; the FIR is not quashed and no mandamus against arrest is issued.ratio¶15
The Court did not adjudicate the contentions raised by the petitioner; those contentions are left open to be raised at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (DB: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi & Prashant Kumar, JJ.), Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:2612-DB, disposed of a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition (No. 22167 of 2024) filed by Sher Khan seeking (i) quashing of FIR dated 09.11.2024, Case Crime No.331 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., P.S. Kutubsher, District Saharanpur, and (ii) a mandamus that the petitioner not be arrested in that FIR. Holding that the correctness of the allegations must be tested on materials collected during investigation, and relying on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335), M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2021 SC 1918), SLP (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati, decided 07.10.2021) and Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi (Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024 / SLP (Crl.) No. 10913 of 2023), the Bench found no case for interference with the FIR. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to seek bail/anticipatory bail before the competent court; the petitioner's contentions were expressly not adjudicated and left open. An inadvertent observation against the informant's counsel in the Bench's earlier order dated 03.01.2025 was deleted.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2612-DB

Court No. - 42

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22167 of 2024

Petitioner :- Sher Khan Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jitendra Prasad Mishra

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the informant.

Due to inadvertence while passing the order dated 03.01.2025, certain observation has been made against the informant's counsel. The said observation stands deleted.

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

"(A ). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report dated 09.11.2024 lodged at Case Crime No.331 of 2024, Under Section 318(4), 316(2),338, 336(3),340(2), 61(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Kutubsher, District Saharanpur (As contained in Annexure NO.1 to the writ petition).

(B). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner with reference to Case Crime No.331 of 2024, Under Section 318(4), 316(2),338, 336(3),340(2),61(2),352, 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Kutubsher, District Saharanpur."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on false/vexatious/mischievous allegations and no offences are made out against the petitioner.

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence.

The correctness of the allegations would have to be tested on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation and 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 and the latest judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave

Petition (Crl.) No. 10913 of 2023 (Directorate of Enforcement vs. Niraj Tyagi & ors.) , no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.

The writ petition is disposed of leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for bail/ anticipatory bail in accordance with law.

It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the same are left open for the petitioner to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 7.1.2025

NLY

Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad