Dismissed

Anshu Ankit v. The State Of Bihar Through Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Patna HC10 Feb 2017CR. WJC/814/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for quashing FIR alleging cheating over university admission fee. Court rejected arguments that inconsistencies and prior counter-complaints invalidate prosecution case, finding ingredients of offence prima facie made out. FIR amendment application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashment of the FIR stands dismissed.

Anshu Ankit Vs The State Of Bihar Through Director… — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.814 of 2015

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -618 Year- 2011 Thana –Dehri (Dalmianagar) District- SASARAM (ROHTAS)

¶4

===========================================================

¶5

Anshu Ankit, S/o Dr. Dinesh Prasad Bhagat, resident of Mohalla- Narkatiaganj, P.S.- Shikarpur, District- West Champaran.

¶6

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar Through Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶10

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶11

The Station House Officer, Dehri (Dalmianagar), District- Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶12

Dr. Prabha Agrawal W/o Dr. O.P. Lal, Rohtas Nursing Home, resident of Mohalla- Station Road Basawan Path, Dalmianagar, P.O.- Dalmianagar, P.S.Dehri (Dalmianagar), District- Rohtas, Bihar.

¶13

.... .... Respondent/s

¶14

=========================================================== Appearance :

¶15

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bauye Jee Jha (B.J. Jha), Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. R.S. Nath, AAG

¶16

===========================================================

¶17

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-02-2017

¶18

This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashment of F.I.R. of Dehri (Dalmianagar) P.S. Case No.618 of 2011, registered on the complaint of respondent No.5, Dr. Prabha Agrawal, against the petitioner for the offences under Sections

¶19

420/406/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Prayer is on the ground that the present case is a counterblast of Complaint Case No.2676(C) of 2010 brought by the petitioner against the husband of the informant of this case with allegation that petitioner was cheated by the husband of the

¶21

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.814 of 2015 dt.10-02-2017

¶22

2/3

¶23

informant in as much as on the allurement of the husband of the informant, the petitioner paid rupees four lacs for getting admission in Sumandeep Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Badodara, Gujarat on 01.04.2010.

¶24

The second ground is that there are several probabilities and improbabilities in the prosecution case, which belies the trustworthiness of the prosecution version. Thirdly, on the ground that there is contradiction regarding the place of payment of money to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is not named in the earlier complaint lodged with the authorities at Gujarat against another co-accused related to the alleged criminal act committed in the same transaction.

¶25

Allegation in the First Information Report is that the complainant had paid Rs.15,00,000/- in different installments to the named accused persons including to the petitioner besides other money for expenses. The money was paid on the allurement of the accused persons to manage admission in MBBS course in Sumandeep Vidyapith Deemed University, Badodra, Gujarat. The admission was not ensured nor money was refunded, hence, the informant found himself cheated.

¶26

After investigation the police submitted charge sheet No.86 of 2016, dated 29.09.2016, against the petitioner and the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehri, has already

¶27

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.814 of 2015 dt.10-02-2017

¶28

3/3

¶29

taken cognizance in the case on 25.11.2016 for the offences alleged.

¶30

After hearing the parties, I do not find any merit in the submission that the probabilities and improbabilities appearing in the case would be a ground of quashment of the FIR or the cognizance. Similarly, there is no merit in the submission that there is contradiction regarding, place and person, payment of money. Though it has come in evidence that part money was paid in Dehri and part was paid in Gujarat, the same is not a contradiction to disbelieve the prosecution case. It appears that co-accused, who is resident of Gujarat, was also paid money, hence, same complaint was made in the State of Gujarat against him wherein the petitioner was not named. That cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Earlier counter case is also not a ground to disbelieve the F.I.R. at this stage. In my view, the ingredients of offences are prima facie made out.

¶31

Hence, this is not a fit case for quashment of F.I.R. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

¶32

(Birendra Kumar, J)

¶33

Mkr./-

¶34

AFR/NAFR
CAVDATE
Uploading Date	17.02.2017
Transmission Date	17.02.2017

Anshu Ankit v. The State Of Bihar Through Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anshu Ankit v. The State Of Bihar Through Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Thakur Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Pawan Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Vijay Tanti Vs The State Of Bihar

Karelal Mahton Vs The State Of Bihar

Rinkesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Tipu Sultan Vs The State Of Bihar