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

Tanisha Auto Sales (India) ... vs State Of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy., ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|28 June, 2010

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Syed Ali Rehan, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 4 as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate.
The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer for quashing FIR relating to case crime no. 90 of 2010 under sections 406, 465, 467, 468 & 471 IPC of Police Station Mahanagar, district Lucknow.
We have gone through the contents of the FIR as well as other documents annexed along with the writ petition. As it comes out, certain amount was advanced by the Punjab National Bank, Nishatganj Branch, Lucknow to the petitioners for the purpose of doing business of scooters and motorcycle. An agreement was entered into between the petitioners and the Bank and a deed of hypothecation was also entered by the petitioners. Since, as alleged in the FIR, the petitioners did not comply with the terms and condition of the agreement and with respect to the requirement of the deed of hypothecation, as such, the FIR has been lodged.
Learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 Sri Syed Ali Rehan submits that due to non-compliance by the petitioners with respect to the deed of hypothecation and terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by the petitioners with the Bank, this FIR has been lodged. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (Act 54 of 2002) are already going on between the parties before the appropriate authority, as such, this FIR is a sham and could not have taken the shape of involving the State agency for hauling up the petitioners under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. There seems to be some substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Opposite parties may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Two weeks thereafter are granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit, if any.
List after expiry of aforesaid period.
Till the next date of listing the petitioners shall not be arrested in the above mentioned case crime number. However, it is directed that investigation shall go on and the petitioners shall cooperate with the same.
Dated: 28.06.2010 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

Tanisha Auto Sales (India) ... vs State Of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy., ...

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
28 June, 2010