Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted noticed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 and Shri Asim K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 3.
Under challenge in the instant writ petition is FIR relating to Case Crime No. 449 of 2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, police station Kotwali Hazratganj, district Lucknow.
We have gone through the FIR.
It comes out that the petitioner pledged his shop no. A-3, situated in the Janpath Market, Hazratganj, Lucknow for obtaining loan in which certain stamp papers, which were submitted, were found to be forged.
Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 3 submits that on the same very papers the petitioner had obtain loan on earlier occasion, which was also later on discovered, as such, this FIR has been lodged. He fails to point out to the Court as to whether any action has been taken against the persons, who had submitted report at the time of grant of loan to the petitioner, either in the shape of advocate or in the shape of employee of Bank of India.
If action has not been taken against the Advocate, who had submitted the report, or the employee of the Bank, the same will not give licence to the petitioner to flee away from the course of justice.
In any case, since the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence, as such, the same cannot be quashed.
The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders and moves application for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the courts below expeditiously.
Order Date :- 29.6.2010 Chauhan/-