Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5087 of 2018 Petitioner :- Girija Shankar Shivhare Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.K Melani,Dharmendra Pratap Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner today in the Court, which is taken on record.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 12.02.2018, which has been registered as Case Crime No. 100 of 2018, under Sections 376, 506, 386 IPC and Section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amended 2015), Police Station Naubasta, Kanpur, District Kanpur City.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Businessman and he is running construction company in the name of Seema Building Maintenance at Dubai. The petitioner has financially helped the respondent no.3 Smt. Sushma Devi. Between the period 2014 to 2017, respondent no.3 had taken a sum of Rs.62,40,471/- from the petitioner. This fact has been mentioned in para 4 of the supplementary affidavit. When respondent no.3 refused to return the said amount and she started blackmailing the petitioner, then the petitioner lodged the FIR against the respondent no.3 on 04.01.2018. The true copy of the said FIR has been filed as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.
It is next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner also filed a Civil Suit No.51 of 2018 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar. The photocopy of the plaint has been filed as annexure no. 1 to the supplementary affidavit.
It is next contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present proceedings are totally mala fide, which has been initiated by the respondent no.3.
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 disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 Nadim