Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7881 of 2018 Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devi Prasad Tripathi,Manish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to stay the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. dated 11.02.2018, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 0040 of 2018, under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has sold his tractor to the respondent no.3 but after some time, the petitioner took away the tractor from the respondent no.3 on the ground that the same is required for his relative and thereafter he did not return the same.
It is next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not sell the tractor to the respondent no.3 but he has sold the same to one Brijendra Singh Sengar on 14.06.2013. The photocopy of registration certificate has been filed as annexure no.2 to this petition.
He has further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the F.I.R., which is a bundle of lies and product of malice, no credible evidence is forthcoming, even prima facie, indicating that any such incident had taken place, hence, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the impugned F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence, the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
From the perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein prima facie cognizable offence is made out, hence, there is no scope for interfering with the impugned F.I.R. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.
However, considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and nature of allegations made in the F.I.R., it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC or till credible evidence is collected, whichever is earlier.
With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Nadim