Vivek Chaudhary vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Vivek Chaudhary vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition finally disposed of without quashing the FIR; petitioner given 60 days from the decision date to appear, surrender before the court below and apply for bail/anticipatory bail, with his bail prayer to be considered and decided per the settled law of Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); no further time for surrender; coercive action follows on default.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 09.12.2024 lodged in Case Crime No.522 of 2024 (Police Station Rawatpur, District Kanpur Nagar) under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC discloses no offence against the petitioner, having allegedly been instituted mala fide for the purpose of causing harassment, such that it ought to be quashed.

Court's answer

On the perusal of the material on record, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner; the petitioner's submissions relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, so only a prima facie view governed by the Supreme Court precedents cited is permissible.

Ratio / Principle

Only a prima facie case is to be seen at this stage, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq (para-10).

Key takeaways

The petitioner's prayer for quashing the FIR of the aforesaid case crime is refused.ratio¶11
Protective direction: in case the petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail/anticipatory bail, his prayer for bail/anticipatory bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in Amrawati and another v. State of U.P. (2004 (57) ALR 290) and by the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)).ratio¶12
In case the petitioner does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (DB: Siddharth & Praveen Kumar Giri, JJ.), Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2679 of 2025 (Vivek Chaudhary v. State of U.P. & 3 Others), decided 20.2.2025 (neutral citation 2025:AHC:24936-DB). Petition under Article 226 sought quashing of FIR dated 09.12.2024, Case Crime No. 522 of 2024, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, PS Rawatpur, Kanpur Nagar, alleging non-disclosure of offence and mala fide institution to cause harassment. Held: the submissions raised disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under Article 226; only a prima facie case was to be examined in light of R.P. Kapur (AIR 1960 SC 866), Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, para-10); on the material on record it could not be said that no offence was made out, and the prayer for quashing was refused. Petition finally disposed of with directions to surrender before the court below within 60 days and apply for bail/anticipatory bail, consideration assured per Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); coercive action on default; no further time for surrender.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24936-DB

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2679 of 2025

Petitioner :- Vivek Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Patel Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi

Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohd. Ashraf Abbasi, learned counsel for respondent no.4, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 09.12.2024 lodged in Case Crime No.522 of 2024, under Sections- 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C, Police Station- Rawatpur, District-Kanpur Nagar.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no offence against the petitioner is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner involve factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate

to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

The prayer for quashing the FIR of the aforesaid case is refused.

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail/anticipatory bail, his prayer for bail/anticipatory bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.

However, in case, the petitioner does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

It is made clear that the petitioner will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.

Order Date :- 20.2.2025 SS

Digitally signed by :- SURENDER SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad