Dismissed

Naveen Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 Jan 2023WPCRL/2173/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR for cheating and forgery. The court held that allegations of a forged demand draft and evidence of a subsequent sale deed precluded quashing, noting the petitioner faces other pending cases for similar offenses.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 0438 of 2022 and directions not to arrest the petitioner was dismissed.

Naveen Agarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand — Quashing and FIR | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			WPCRL No. 2173 of 2022 Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J. Shri Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Manisha Rana, learned AGA assisted by Shri Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. By filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the FIR No. 0438 of 2022 under Section 420, 467,, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC, Police Station – Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun lodged by respondent no. 3 on 06.09.2022. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents no. 1 and 2 not to arrest the petitioner and not to take any coercive measure against him in pursuance to the impugned FIR No. 0438 of 2022 under Section 420, 467,, 468, 471, 120-B, IPC, Police Station – Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun lodged by respondent no. 3 on 06.09.2022.” Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the contents of the FIR do not make out a case of cheating or forgery of documents. However, the contents of the FIR reveal that the complainant executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of maintaining the property, in question and there was no authority given to the petitioner to sell the land, in question. However, later on, it was found that a sale deed was executed by the petitioner on 09.05.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no allegation that the petitioner gave a forged demand draft of Rs. One Crore Fifty

¶2

Lakh to the complainant. He would further submit
that power of attorney did authorise the Attorney
i.e. petitioner to sell the land and that he is not
required to pay any sale consideration to the
complainant for the purpose of executing a power
of attorney. However, paragraph 4 of the copy of
Power of Attorney, reflects the words “to alienate
the said property to file any writ”. Thus, it clear
that there is no unequivocal, clear and cogent
authority to the petitioner to sell the property.
Whether this clause is, in fact, the authority to sell
or not is a matter to be decided by the trial court
and not by this Court while deciding whether FIR
can be quashed or not.
The second contention that there is no need to
pay any money to the complainant on execution of
a power of attorney, this Court is of the opinion
that once, there is allegation that petitioner has
handed over a forged demand draft to the
complainant and the Bank has also intimated that
the demand draft is forged, the FIR cannot be
quashed merely on the basis of argument of
learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is
not required to pay any money to the complainant
for execution of power of attorney.
Learned State Counsel would submit that
there are four criminal cases pending against the
petitioner, out of which three involves offences
under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, as involved in
the present case.
In that view of the matter, this Court finds no
merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)
04.01.2023
(Grant urgent certified copy of this order, as per Rules)
SKS

Naveen Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Salman Vs State of Uttarakhand through the Secretary of Home Affairs Government of U.K. Dehradun

Ismail Vs State of Uttarakhand through the Secretary of Home Affairs, Government of U.K. Dehradun

Sanjeev Gupta Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rashid Vs State of Uttarakhand

Umesh Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Birendra Singh Bisht Vs Pankaj Kumar Pandey