Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2010
  6. /
  7. January

Smt. Saoini Devi Agarwal W/O Shiv ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home & Ors.

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|04 February, 2010

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Hon'ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.
Heard Sri Kr. Mridul Rakesh, Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Sri I.B.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rishad Murtaza,Advocate for oppoiste party no.4 and the learned Additional Government Advocate.
The petitioners by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution, have prayed for quashing FIR relating to case crime no. 44 of 2010 under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC of P.S. Hazratganj, district Lucknow.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that from a bare reading of the impugned FIR, it cannot be said that any offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been committed by the petitioners. He submitted that at the most, opposite party no. 4 could have approached the proper forum, i.e. the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, it being in the nature of civil dispute and not a criminal dispute.
On the contrary, Sri I.B. Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 4 strenuously submitted that the allegations of the FIR are to be seen in its entirety and by any of stretch of imagination it cannot be said that from the reading of the FIR no offence under the aforesaid Sections of the Penal Code has been made out. He has taken us through the documents annexed along with the writ petition to stress that not only dispute is going on between the petitioners on the one hand and the opposite party no.4 on the other hand with respect to property situate at 163-M Nawal Kishore Road, Lucknow, but certain amount, as per averments made in the FIR, has also been siphoned while committing criminal breach of trust and cheating. He submitted that the complainant, in the FIR has made specific allegation that he has been cheated.
We have gone through the contents of the FIR, and in our opinion, since the FIR disclose commission of cognizable offence, as such, the same cannot be quashed.
The writ petition being misconceived deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 4.2.2010 anb
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Smt. Saoini Devi Agarwal W/O Shiv ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home & Ors.

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
04 February, 2010