Sanjeev @ Sanjeev Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 824 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13278 of 2018
 
Petitioner :- Sanjeev @ Sanjeev Kumar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhil Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

Heard Sri A.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K.Verma,learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned FIR as well as material brought on record.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the FIR dated 29.3.2016, registered as case crime No.226 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Gurusahaiganj, District Kannauj.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that Rs.2 lacs which was paid as claim to the private respondent no.3 by the Insurance Company in question, the same was wrongly deposited in the account of the petitioner by the Bank and when this fact came into knowledge of the petitioner, he immediately contacted the concerned Bank Manager and transferred the same in the account of private respondent no.3 by way of two transactions, i.e., Rs. 50,000/- on 9.3.2016 & Rs.1,50,000/- on 8.3.2016 respectively, which is evident from the Annexure-2 to the writ petition as well as from the statement of account of respondent no.4 of the concerned Bank, hence, no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and nature of the allegations, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the submission of the police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but he shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

It is made clear that in case it is found that the amount in question has not been paid to private respondent no.3 by the petitioner, as has been demonstrated before this Court, the present order giving protection to the petitioner shall automatically stand discharged.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Order Date :- 23.5.2018/NS