Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 15 May, 2023
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla, Surendra Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104260-DB
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5359 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rajesh Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- B.K. Shukla,Shashi Kant Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Shashi Kant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and Sri Anurag Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the informant, who has filed his Vakalatnama today, which is taken on record.
2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 24.1.2023 registered as Case Crime no. 27 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 506 IPC, P.S. George Town, District Prayagraj. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no offence has been made out against the petitioner. The first information report was lodged after a huge delay of about 11 years and has no legs to stand. It is next submitted that no agreement was ever executed as alleged by the respondent no. 3 of Arazi No. 42 and he never made any signature in any capacity whatsoever. He next submitted that the petitioner never involved in the deal of the aforesaid land in question and although it is alleged that money was given to his relative, however, it is absolutely false that the same was made on false representative because of the petitioner herein. It is next submitted that the agreement on Rs. 100/- stamp paper has no sanctity and as such cannot form basis of lodging first information report. It is next submitted that admittedly the informant has initiated proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act against one Amrish, who is relative of the petitioner herein, therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is not involved in the present case. It is next submitted that in the present case Section 41-A Cr.P.C. would be applicable and therefore, the petitioner is liable to be granted indulgence in the present case.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that a bare glance over the first information report clearly discloses that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and the delay in a case of fraud is immaterial and the first information report clearly reflects direct involvement of the petitioner, which is subject matter of investigation. It is next submitted that in paragraph 20 of the petition although it has been stated that there are some more cases against the petitioner, however, details thereof have not been disclosed in the petition. By producing copy of the bail application filed by the petitioner being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14944 of 2023 (Rajesh Tiwari vs. State of U.P.) it is submitted by learned counsel for the informant that the criminal history has been disclosed by the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has criminal history of about ten cases of similar nature and therefore, the petitioner is repeat offender.
5. Learned A.G.A. has produced a copy of the instruction dated 10.4.2023, wherein criminal history of the petitioner of six cases, which includes similar nature, have also been placed before this Court, which are as follows:-
"i. Case Crime No. 401 of 2022 under Sections 406, 419, 420 IPC, Police Station Colonalganj, District Prayagraj
ii. Case Crime No. 84 of 2021 under Sections 120B, 307, 506 IPC, Police Station Jhunsi, District Prayagraj
iii. Case Crime No. 444 of 2011 under Sections 147, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Georgetown, District Prayagraj
iv. Case Crime No. 222 of 2006 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 457, 427, 506 IPC, Police Station Georgetown, District Prayagraj
v. Case Crime No. 488 of 2015 under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj
vi. Case Crime No. 27 of 2023 under Sections 406, 419, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station Georgetown, District Prayagraj"
6. Learned A.G.A. submits that the first information report clearly discloses commission of cognizable offence and the petitioner being a repeat offender is not entitled for benefit of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
7. We find substance in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the informant and learned A.G.A. and find that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and as such the argument that are being raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are his defence and cannot be considered for the purpose of quashing of the first information report.
8. Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
9. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 15.5.2023
Lalit Shukla
