Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2910 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar @ Guddu Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Tripathi,Dhiresh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Dhiresh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned A.G.A. for respondents no.1, 2 and 3; and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the F.I.R. dated 09.01.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 0013 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Fatehganj East, District- Bareilly. Further prayer has been made by the petitioner in this petition to issue a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rs. 4 lacs were obtained by informant Gajendra Singh S.I. (respondent no. 4) in the year of May, 2018 to provide service to the daughter of the petitioner and when the daughter of the petitioner was not selected, then the petitioner demanded his money back but respondent no.4 did not return the money and always threatened to rope in false case. In this regard, a complaint case was filed by the wife of the petitioner in the year 2020, thereafter, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner making false allegations due to ulterior motive.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and stated that in the impugned F.I.R., it has been mentioned that the petitioner's demanded Rs.5 lacs for sanctioning of loan from Zila Udyog Kendra. As per F.I.R. Rs.4,75,000/- was paid by the brother of the respondent no.4 to the petitioner but no loan was sanctioned of the brother of the respondent no.4, when the brother of the respondent no.4 demanded his money back, then the petitioner and his wife threatened to implicate in a rape case. From the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. clearly disclose commission of cognizable offence and therefore, the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.
From the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., it cannot be said that no cognizable office is made out against the petitioner. As per the F.I.R. version, petitioner had received Rs.4,75,000/- from the brother of the respondent no.4 to get sanction loan in the name of brother of respondent no.4.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we find no good ground to quash the impugned F.I.R., therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the First Information Report cannot be accepted.
The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 7.4.2021 Ishan