Raj Kumar Seth @ Sonu Seth vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 788 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17702 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Seth @ Sonu Seth
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kavindra Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

By way of this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned F.I.R. dated 23.11.2020 alleging commission of offence under section 411 I.P.C in Case Crime No.0078 of 2020 at P.S.- G.R.P. Mirzapur, District- Mirzapur.

The factual data as it emerges from the F.I.R. and the appended documents is that the statement of the accused Gokul Prasad Bind who is in jail and against whom case crime no.0067 of 2020 as well as case crime no.37 of 2020 are lodged, categorically gave the name of the petitioner is that the petitioner had received the stolen property. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner Kavindra Singh that the lodgement of the F.I.R. is malicious and no recovery whatsoever has been made from the petitioner. So far the impugned F.I.R therefore should be quashed for the petitioner himself.

The Counsel for the State has contented that it is a named F.I.R. where the accused has been named as a person who has prima facie received the stolen property and only after he is in custody or there is a custodial interrogation recoveries or no recoveries can be mentioned.

We are unable to satisfy ourselves for the quantours laid by the Apex Court for entertaining this petition so as to quash the First Information Report just because there is no recovery from the petitioner, it cannot be said that no case is made out.

The judgment of the Apex Court in (2017) 2 SCC 779 (State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others) wherein it has been held that the court should exercise powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India very seldomly and only if no case is made out or if the court feels that the allegations is of false implication. Inherent powers for quashment cannot be extended in matters which prima facie go to show that offence has been committed.

The petition is devoid of merits as the F.I.R. prima facie, cannot be said to be not disclosing any offence.

In that view of the matter, this petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 12.1.2021/ shiv