Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10430 of 2021 Petitioner :- Manoj Bhati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Prakash Mishra,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Omar Zamin
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
List of fresh cases has been revised.
A prayer for adjournment is being made on behalf of the learned Senior Advocate.
Sri Omar Zamin, learned counsel for the respondent is present.
Present petition has been filed with following prayer:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 10.09.2019, in Case Crime No. 1417 of 2019, Under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C.
registered at Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad lodged against the petitioner (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report dated 10.09.2019, in Case Crime No. 1417 of 2019, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. registered at Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to hand over all documents of impugned F.I.R. to the C.B.I. for proper investigation in the case registered as Crime No. RC00072020A0004 under Section 120-B, 416, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at office of Superintendent of Police, Dehradun."
Sri Omar Zamin, learned counsel for the respondent has produced before this Court copies of the orders passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11739 of 2020 (Jagat Singh vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others) and Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10182 of 2021 (Ram Nath Mishra vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others), which were filed against the same case crime numbers and both the writ petitions were dismissed by two Co-ordinate Division Benches of this Court vide their orders dated 04.11.2020 and 27.11.2021.
The order dated 04.11.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11739 of 2020 (Jagat Singh vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others) is quoted as under:-
"Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh, 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 10.09.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 1417 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Sihani Gate, District - Ghaziabad.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. along with co-accused persons but in the body of the F.I.R. no allegation against him has been made by the respondent no. 3, Virendra Singh who is the informant of the case. He further pointed out that the informant himself filed an affidavit before the S.S.P., Ghaziabad wherein he categorically stated on oath that though there is no allegation of forgery and fraud by the petitioner but it is only stated that the plot in question was sold by him to the petitioner and he has not alleged any allegation against the petitioner.
Learned A.G.A. for the State pointed out that the informant of the case has filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11530 of 2020 (Virendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 8 others) for expediting the investigation of the case and the petitioner has also been made as respondent no. 8 in the said writ petition to which learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order passed in the said writ petition is still awaited.
After considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter as nothing adverse is shown from the petitioner's side in the F.I.R. In the F.I.R., it is stated that the petitioner has been made an accused in the array of the parties but there appears to be no allegation made in the body of the F.I.R.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed on the aforesaid count alone.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. "
The order dated 27.11.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10182 of 2021 (Ram Nath Mishra vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others) is quoted as under:-
"Heard Sri Sanjeet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent concerned, not to arrest the petitioner, with a further prayer for quashing the impugned FIR dated 2.7.2020, registered as Case Crime No.340/2020, under Sections 420/467/468/471/414 IPC, P.S. Kithore, Meerut.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR has been lodged on false / vexatious / mischievous allegations, no offences are made out, FIR be quashed.
Learned AGA has opposed the submission.
The correctness of the allegations would have to be tested on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation as by insertion of notification No.1058/79-V-1-19-1 (Ka)-20-2018 dated 6th June 2019, an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner to seek for an anticipatory bail.
We deem it appropriate to dismiss this petition without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to apply for anticipatory bail / bail as he may be advised.
The writ petition is dismissed.
It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the contentions raised which are left open for the petitioner to raise at an appropriate stage in an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law. "
On perusal of list of fresh cases, we find that this petition is continuing as a passed over case in the list since long and on the earlier occasion also the case was passed over.
In such view of the matter, prayer for adjournment is rejected.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any good ground to take a different view in the matter.
Consequently, present petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 Aditya