Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1247 of 2019 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Nevatia Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shambhavi Nandan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akshat Sinha
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; Sri Akshat Sinha for the respondent no.4; and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report dated 16.12.2018 registered as Case Crime No.2073 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.
Vijaynagar, District Ghaziabad.
The allegation in the first information report is to the effect that the informant had given a power of attorney in favour of the brother of his partner, namely, the petitioner, to manage the affairs of the firm as a Manager thereof. It is alleged that taking advantage of informant's absence, by forging documents, the petitioner got lease hold rights of the plots, allotted to the informant's firm, transferred in his own name.
The petitioner has sought quashing of the first information report not on the ground that it does not disclose commission of cognizable offence but on the ground that the documents on the basis of which the lease hold rights were assigned were not forged but genuine and, therefore, no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner before considering the above aspects.
Ordinarily, quashing of the first information report can be sought where the first information report does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence. Once, the first information report discloses commission of cognizable offence it is a matter of investigation to find out whether the documents on the basis of which transfer of lease hold rights was obtained were forged or not.
As the allegations made in the first information report are to the effect that the documents were forged and nothing has been shown in the writ petition that any consideration was paid to the erstwhile owner for assignment of lease hold rights, though it is stated that the lessor had been paid by the petitioner, we do not consider it appropriate to quash the first information report or to interfere with the investigation. It is, however, expected that the Investigating Officer shall first ascertain whether the documents on the basis of which transfer was obtained were forged or not and for that end it would keep in mind the definition of a false document as provided in Section 464 IPC.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 21.1.2019 AKShukla/-