Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1868 of
2020
Petitioner :- Dharmendra Alias Daroga Singh And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anant Ram Dube,Omkar Dutt Malviya
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. on behalf of respondents 1 and 2; Sri A.K.S. Bais, learned counsel for the informant (respondent no.3) and perused the record. As the F.I.R. was of the year 2017, we had required the learned A.G.A. to seek instructions whether the investigation is pending.
Learned counsel for the informant has informed the Court that the investigation is pending.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the F.I.R. dated 29.10.2017 lodged by the respondent no. 3 as Case Crime No.0452 of 2017 at P.S. Sarai Inayat, District Allahabad (now Prayagraj), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 457 and
380 I.P.C.
The allegation in the impugned first information report, which has been lodged by one of the parties to proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is that in respect of a brick kiln proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were drawn and by order dated 15.5.2017, under Section 146 (1) Cr.P.C., attachment was directed. Against the order of attachment, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.17451 of 2017 was filed in which parties were directed to maintain status quo. By misrepresenting to the authorities that there had been a stay order in favour of accused party, on 16.05.2017, from Up Zila Karyalay, a release order was obtained and the property that was subject matter of attachment, was got released in favour of accused party and sold by it.
The thrust of the allegation is that the accused party misrepresented to the concerned Magistrate as regards the stay order in their favour and thereby exploited the situation. Neutral Citation No. - 2020:AHC:33086-DB
1
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. has since been terminated and in so far as interpretation of the stay order is concerned, that was for the authority to interpret the order and the petitioners are not to be blamed for that. It has been submitted that under the circumstances, the petitioners have committed no offence.
The subsequent disposal of the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken as a ground to quash the F.I.R. because whether an offence has been committed or not would have to be determined on the state of affairs as existed on the date and time of commission of the offence. What is to be seen is whether there has been false misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners for the purposes of securing release or it is just an interpretation provided by the petitioners in their favour on which the authority acted upon.
As all the above aspects are matter of investigation, the prayer to quash the F.I.R. cannot be accepted and therefore matter would have to be investigated and brought to its logical conclusion.
However, considering the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by providing that the investigation of the case shall continue and brought to its logical conclusion but the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. provided they co-operate in the investigation.
Order Date :- 13.2.2020 Meenu
2
Comments