Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10547 of 2019 Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kaustubh Srivastava,Rajiv Lochan Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rahul Chaudhary
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
The case has come up before this Court in pursuance of nomination by Hon'ble Senior Judge, dated 26.04.2019. Thus, the Court proceeds to hear the case.
Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate who has filed his appearance on behalf of respondent no. 3 and learned A. G. A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No. 262 of 2019, Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Noida Sector-20, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is senior citizen aged about 71 years old and suffering from old age infirmity; he was only the member of society and has transferred his share to his daughter and has no role to play as far as embezzlement as alleged in the first information report is concerned; further contention is that though the petitioner has been named in the FIR however no role has been assigned to him in the entire controversy; looking to the nature of allegations as have been made in the first information report and the role of the petitioner, no custodial interrogation is required; matter requires deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to and the petitioner will participate and co-operate with the investigation; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F. I. R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, Sri Rahul Chaudhary, who has filed his appearance on behalf of respondent no. 3 has opposed the writ petition with the contention that the petitioner from the office bearer and had active role to play in the controversy. Learned A. G. A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in 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.
After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F. I. R.
However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforementioned case till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., however, petitioner shall participate and co-operate with the investigation and the police authorities are directed to complete the investigation as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Swati