Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26670 of 2018
Petitioner :- Tanuj Solanki And 03 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jamal Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri J.A.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.P.Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 6.9.2018, registered as case crime No.532 of 2018, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 506, 120-B, 34 I.P.C. and 66 I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008, P.S.NOIDA Sector-58, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with malafide intention. He further submitted that M/s. Securetrans India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'SIPL')had taken contract from Monitoring Service Provider for refilling cash in A.T.Ms. which are owned by the Bank and the petitioners along with 178 employees in different categories were employed by SIPL for the said purpose. He next argued petitioners had made a complaint against the respondent no.3 before the Labour Commissioner regarding termination of all the employees by respondent no.3, hence, just as a pressure tactics the impugned FIR has been lodged by respondent no.3 against the petitioners levelling allegations that the petitioners had instigated the other employees for committing the crime in question which is absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. No offence is made out against the petitioners, hence, FIR is liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses cognizable offence.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.
Taking into account the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners and from the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 25.9.2018/NS