Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
1. Heard Ms. Prashansha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Siddartha Sinha and Shri Avinash Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Shri Arunendra, learned A.G.A. for the respondent State.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner -Sunita Agarwal to quash F.I.R. dated 14.1.2021 registered at Case Crime No.33 of 2021, under Sections 506, 420, 409, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by respondent no. 4 just for harassment of the petitioner with oblique motive, hence the present F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Director of M/s Wealth Mantra Infracom Pvt. Ltd and the petitioner's Firm took loan of Rs.2 crores from the complainant company for promoting building construction. The petitioner is continuously paying the interest upon the loan amount but due to financial crisis, she could not repay the principle amount as a result of which present F.I.R. as well as a complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act was filed against her and others.
5. On the contrary, Shri Siddartha Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer to quash the First Information Report and submitted that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner as per the impugned FIR.
6. In the short counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has submitted that the petitioner has cheated the complainant. It is further submitted that respondent no.4 has given Rs.2 crores to the petitioner's firm for the purpose of allotment of commercial shop in I.T.Park, Ansal Sushant Golf City, Lucknow. Neither any shop was allotted to the complainant nor the payment was returned to the complainant. It has also been submitted in the short counter affidavit that petitioner has criminal antecedents of cheating the public at large by duping the money of hundreds of investors.
7. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the petitioner and her husband have criminal antecedents of several cases of duping the money of several investors and as such the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. After having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the impugned F.I.R. and keeping in view of the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the impugned FIR discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner, hence, no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash of the FIR or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner.
9. The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
.
(Saroj Yadav,J) (Ramesh Sinha,J) Order Date :- 18.8.2021/Shukla