Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Restoration application has been filed beyond time by more than one year and an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act has been filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.
The ground shown in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application is sufficient.
The delay condonation application is allowed and the delay of more than one year in filing the restoration application is condoned.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 M/A.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Order on Restoration Application No. 2 of 2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the matter was listed on 01.12.2016, the case could not be marked and the same was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Cause shown is sufficient.
The restoration application is allowed.
Order dated 01.12.2016 is hereby recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original number.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 M/A.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 14.02.2016 which has been registered as Case Crime No. 192 of 2016, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad so far it relates to the petitioner.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value of the property in question. It is further argued that the mater is purely of civil nature, which has been dragged into criminal prosecution of the petitioner at the behest of respondent no. 4, which is nothing but gross misuse of process of Court. He 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. 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 allegations made therein a 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) or till credible evidence is collected, whichever is earlier.
With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 M/A.