Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8001 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rishi Bhatt Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra Tiwari,Shakti Shanker Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Amit Shukla
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner herein seeks for quashing of the first information report dated 18.08.2021 bearing Case Crime No.706 of 2021 under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, P.S.- Farrukhabad, District- Fatehgarh.
The petitioner herein was posted as Sales Executive/Assistant Sales Area Manager in the company-in-question of which the respondent no.3/first informant is the Collection Manager.
The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are two fold. Firstly, it is sought to be submitted that on the same set of allegations, the first information report dated 09.08.2021 bearing Case Crime No.465 of 2021 under Section 420 IPC had been lodged. The second FIR, being the instant FIR, dated 18.08.2021 registered as Case Crime No.706 of 2021 under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, therefore, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed on the ground of being the second FIR.
Second submission is that the petitioner herein was posted as Area Sales Manager and for any allegations in the first information report-in-question, he cannot be held responsible. In any case, the petitioner has no concern with the loan applications or the loan extended to the beneficiaries. The primary responsibility was of the Sales Manager and other higher officials.
Considering all these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the copies of the first information reports brought on record, it is evident that the FIR dated 09.08.2021 had been lodged by one Dharmendra against four named persons and unnamed employees of the Bank with the allegation that they had duped him in the matter of extension of loan whereas, the FIR-in-question had been lodged by the Collection Manager of the company namely H.D.B. Financial Services Limited, which is a non banking financial institution registered under the Companies Act' 1956.
The allegations in the present first information report are that the petitioner and other employees of the Finance company had embezzled the funds of the company by creating forged documents by extending loan to the persons whose identity could not be ascertained. Having noticed the allegations in both the first information reports, the first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is turned down.
As regards the second submission, suffice is to note that the correctness of the allegations in the FIR or the extent of involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime, cannot be examined by this Court within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, any interference at this stage may impede the process of speedy investigation.
The writ petition is, thus, found devoid of merits and hence
dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.9.2021 P Kesari