Court No. - 40
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 34313 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ramesh Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Vaish Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Prabhakar Tripathi
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 28.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 1361 of 2018, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., P.S. Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute pertains to the authenticity power of attorney executed by Ajay Sharma and Rakesh Sharma in favour of the petitioner who claims himself to be illiterate person. He further submitted that the power of attorney does not contain any photograph of the Principal which was fabricated by other co-accused. Moreover apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. lodged by the the respondent no. 4 alleging commission of offences by the petitioner under the aforesaid sections, no evidence is forthcoming, even prima facie indicating at the petitioner's complicity and hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
Per contra learned AGA submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that from the perusal of the impugned F.I.R. and the allegations made therein it cannot be said that prima facie no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.
However, considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case litigation is still pending and some of the courts have decided the issue in favour of the petitioner, made in the impugned F.I.R., the provisions of section 157 Cr.P.C. and the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Versus State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J., 1981, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the credible evidence is not collected by the I.O. during pendency of the investigation.
With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 SA