Hon'ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as Shri I. B. Singh learned Senior Advocate appearing for opposite party No. 4 and also perused counter and rejoinder affidavits exchanged between the parties. It is a case where petitioners have approached this Court with prayer for quashing the FIR relating to Case Crime No. 23 of 2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, police station Gomti Nagar, district Lucknow.
We have gone through the contents of the FIR and other documents annexed along with the writ petition.
It comes out that some firm was established by petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 4 and later on during the course of business since the firm could not earn profit, as such, another firm, namely, Pashupati Nath Enterprise was circulated by petitioner No. 1 in the name of his wife and son. It also comes out that the property, which was earlier hypothecated to the bank, has again been hypothecated to the Bank for obtaining loan in the name of new firm.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to take the Court towards the documents annexed along with the petition and other papers so as to justify his claim. In view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 170 and in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others reported in (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 691, the documents annexed along with the petition cannot be threshed at the initial juncture for considering the prayer for quashing the FIR.
It is only to be seen whether the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence or not and since the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence, as such, the same cannot be quashed.
The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is provided that if petitioners surrender and move application for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the courts below expeditiously while giving the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. to petitioner No. 2, Poonam Capoor being lady.
Order Date :- 1.2.2010 Pradeep/-