Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23485 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jamuna Prasad Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari,Advocate, has file his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.3 today in Court, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri P.K.Singh, earned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.3, Sri N.K.Verma, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 10.6.2018, registered as case crime No.195 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 I.P.C., P.S. Gola, District Gorakhpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with malafide intention. He further submitted that the petitioner is Lecturer in Central School at Jagdishpur, District Amethi and he is at the verge of his retirement in the year 2020. He next argued that brother of the petitioner, namely, Pramod Yadav is Chief (Director) of Accuvation Health Care Company (here-in-after referred to as 'the Company') which is registered one and it provides privileges to down-trodden people charging petty amount. The informant-respondent no.3 has taken franchisee of District Distribution on his request. As per the terms and conditions, respondent no.3 deposited an amount of Rs.3 lacs to the said Pramod Yadav and thereafter an agreement was also alleged to have been prepared. He argued that the petitioner has no concern with the said Company and only account of the fact that he is brother of the co-accused Pramod who is Chief (Director) of the Company, against whom main allegation has been levelled, he has been dragged in the present case. He further argued that this is the fourth FIR against the petitioner for the similar allegations. One of the FIR which was registered as Case Crime No.1093 of 2017, under Sections 406, 419, 420 I.P.C. and 66 I.T. Act, P.S. Khorabar, District Gorakhpur has been challenged by the petitioner as well by his brother, namely, Pramod Yadav before this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.8451 of 2018 and Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.8478 of 2018, in which interim protection was granted to them by this Court vide order dated 5.4.2018, copies of which have been annexed at pages-28 & 30 of the writ petition, hence, the impugned FIR on the similar allegation is barred. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. No offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, FIR is liable to be quashed. In support of this argument, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs.Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in AIR 2013, SCC 3794 and has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph nos. 32, 33 & 53 of the said judgment.
Learned counsel for the caveator-respondent no.3 as well as learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses cognizable offence and submitted that it was the petitioner along with the co-accused Yamuna Prasad Yadav who had come to the respondent no.3 informing him about the Company which is being run by the co-accused Pramod Kumar and at the assurance given by the petitioner and co-accused, respondent no.3 had paid Rs.3 lacs to the co-accused Pramod Yadav on 20.1.2017 and 3.5.2017 and in this manner the petitioner along with his brother has cheated several persons, for which FIR's have been registered against them. He next argued that the impugned FIR which has been lodged by the respondent no.3 against the petitioner is not barred as the other FIRs have been lodged by different persons. It has been further argued that the case referred above, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
After having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR, we are of the opinion that the impugned FIR discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner, hence, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner.
The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 28.8.2018/NS