Prateek Agarwal vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5332 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7701 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Prateek Agarwal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Chaudhari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

Heard Sri Manuj Agrawal learned counsel for the petitioner.

At the outset while going through the FIR and the Judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, as well as judgment of this High Court in Vimal Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2021 Supreme (All) 64 decided on 28.01.2021, we are of the considered opinion that the entire FIR, even if it is taken as it is, and the information given, does not prima facie for the time being make out a case against the petitioner under Section 467 IPC of the Indian Penal Code which is punishable with life imprisonment.

As far as other accused are concerned, they are not before us, therefore, we do not pass any order in respect of them.

So far as the petitioner is concerned qua other sections, the incident mentioned against the petitioner cannot be quashed and, therefore, relegate the petitioner to get the statement recorded under Section 41A of the FIR for other offences.

Having gone through the factual data it is very clear that the dispute mainly rests with the original complainant and the other co-accused.

Certain factual data from the facts reveal that it is petitioner who is at loss as he has to get money from the complainant also. However, we do not delve in the said issue for which it will be open to the petitioner to take proceedings as permitted under law.

We have delved into the facts as prima facie the judgment of Bhajan Lal in paras and conditions 1 and 7 which has been pressed by the counsel for the petitioner qua Section 467 requires to be followed.

We are in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the matter requires investigation as there is a complaint made not by the petitioner but against other accused, therefore, the matter has to be investigated.

The petitioner would appear before the concerned police authorities pursuant to this order within four weeks from today.

The investigation is not stayed.

This petition is disposed of as directed.

Order Date :- 22.6.2022

Manish Tripathi