Dismissed

Umar Mohammad S/O Shri Jabroo B/C Mev v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2020CRLMP/2689/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an FIR for forgery and criminal breach of trust filed against the petitioner was dismissed. The court held that prima facie allegations of offences were made out and no case for quashing existed.

What did the court decide?

The dismissal of the criminal miscellaneous petition and disposal of other pending applications.

Umar Mohammad S/O Shri Jabroo B/C Mev Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2689/2019

¶3

Umar Mohammad S/o Shri Jabroo B/c Mev, R/o Booraka, Tehsil Taudu, District Mewat, Hariyana.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

¶7

Naveen Bansal S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, R/o Aashiyana Green B-104, Bhiwadi, District Alwar, Raj.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Tiwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Tiwari on behalf of Mr. Ram Manohar Sharma Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

09/01/2020

¶13

The petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the FIR registered against him by the complainant, submitting that the complainant and Crime Branch, New Delhi had registered an FIR with regard to carrying on business of spurious drugs at the Industrial Commercial Plot which was actually let out to the complainant by the petitioner. In the said case, charge sheet has already been filed against the complainant.

¶14

Learned counsel submits that after having been granted interim bail in the said case, the complainant lodged an FIR u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC against the petitioner submitting false facts alleging that actual business was being carried out by

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMP-2689/2019]

¶17

the petitioner by forged documents in the name of the complainant.

¶18

This court initially had allowed the police to continue with the investigation with direction that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶19

Learned PP has submitted that the petitioner has not cooperate with the investigation and has not produced the original documents relating to fact of letting out the premises to the complainant.

¶20

Learned counsel in the rejoinder submits that the original documents are with the Crime Branch, New Delhi which were with the complainant who has given them out to the Crime Branch. It is not possible for the petitioner to further provide/directed the same to the investigation agency to conduct investigation in FIR against the petitioner.

¶21

I have considerd the submissions.

¶22

The prayer made in the present petition is to quash the FIR No.17/2019 registered against the petitioner by the complainant. This court initially did not agree with the petitioner for staying investigation. This court is satisfied that the contents of the FIR registered against the petitioner make out prima facie allegation of offences u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC, for which the police is required to conduct investigation and reach to final conclusion in this regard. The Police Authority would also to take into consideration the FIR against the complainant as well as the documents filed in the charge sheet by the Crime Branch, New

¶23

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2689/2019]

¶24

Delhi and submit its final report before the concerned court. No

¶25

case for interference for quashing the FIR is made out.

¶26

The misc. petition is found to be wholly misconceived and the same is dismissed.

¶27

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶28

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶29

Anu /397

Umar Mohammad S/O Shri Jabroo B/C Mev v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umar Mohammad S/O Shri Jabroo B/C Mev v. State of Rajasthan

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

Similar cases

Asad Sayeed S/O Shaheed Ahmed B/C Muslim Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Jat S/O Shri Onkar Ram Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Jahiruddin @ Jabiruddin Khan Vs Ashok Kumar Rajoria

Roop Narain Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Purushottam and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ravindra Singh S/O Shri Himamt Singh B/C Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan