Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5061 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
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 27.1.2018, lodged in Case Crime No.40 of 2018, under Sections 365 I.P.C., Police Station Hathras Kotwali, District Hathras.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent no. 3 by way of filing an an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that his son had gone to Delhi on 4.11. 2017 after working for M/s R.K. Jewellers and since then he has not come back. In fact the petitioner has given 210 gms and 1.50 mg gold on 3.11.2017 for repair to the respondent no. 3, but the said jewellery has not been return back to the petitioner The respondent no.3 has lodged this F.I.R. against the petitioner as a counter blast of the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner against the respondent no.3. The petitioner came to know about his implication in the said crime without there being any credible evidence against him in commission of alleged offence. 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 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) 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 R