Allahabad High Court
Anoop Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 October, 2023
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Syed Aftab Rizvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191783-DB
Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13692 of 2023
Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.P.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohit Singh,Saurabh Basu
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report, dated 08.08.2023, in Case Crime No.672 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad.
At the outset, when the matter is taken up an objection is raised by Sri Saurabh Basu, learned counsel for the respondent informant on the ground that challenge to the same FIR against the co-accused has been negatived by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.13687 of 2023 vide order dated 19.09.2023, which is reproduced hereinafter:-
"This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report in Case Crime No.672 of 2023, on the ground that, the F.I.R. allegations at best denote existence of commercial dispute between the parties and there are no allegations against petitioner no.2 who happens to be the wife of petitioner no.1.
Sri Saurabh Basu has appeared for the informant and has placed various e-mails sent by the petitioners to the buyers stating that the informant's company is no longer functional and on false pretext recommending the purchase of goods from a different company owned by petitioner no.1. Petitioners allegedly are the employees of the informant and the allegation is that fraudulent e-mails have been sent from the account of the informant's company by the present petitioners who are both its employees.
Various arguments are advanced on facts of the case, in order to, submit that the I.D. from which such e-mails have been sent actually belongs to the petitioners and not to the informant.
During the course of argument, we propose to refer the matter to mediation but one of the parties is not agreed. It is not necessary to specify which of the parties is not agreeable for mediation as the process itself is wholly voluntary.
In the facts of the case, we do find prima facie allegation with regard to commissioning of cognizable offence and since correctness or otherwise of such allegations are required to be determined at the stage of investigation or trial. We decline to interfere in the present petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Dismissal of this petition, however, does not preclude the petitioners from seeking appropriate protection under the Code of Criminal Procedure."
It is further submitted by Sri Basu that once this Court has declined to entertain the writ petition filed by the co-accused against the same FIR, the investigation will have to proceed and the prayer made for quashing the FIR at the instance of present petitioner cannot be entertained.
Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttranchal and others, (2007) 12 SCC 1 and Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others, (2006) 6 SCC 736 in order to submit that the dispute raised in the FIR is purely a civil dispute and, therefore, lodging of FIR is an abuse of process of law.
We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses allegation with regard to commissioning of cognizable offence. What exactly is the role played by the petitioner is a matter to be examined at the stage of investigation/trial. Once the FIR prima facie discloses commissioning of cognizable offence, we are not required to examine the specific role played by the petitioner in the matter so as to quash the FIR in respect of the present petitioner. The First Information Report merely is an intimation to the concerned Station House Officer with regard to allegations relating to commissioning of cognizable offence. Whether those allegations are made out or not is an aspect to be determined at the stage of investigation/trial.
Law is otherwise settled that correctness or otherwise of the allegations are not required to be examined in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor the defence of accused can be made the basis for adjudication of issues, which are yet to be determined during investigation/trial.
Subject to the above observations made, this writ petition is dismissed.
Dismissal of this writ petition, however, will not preclude the petitioner from seeking appropriate relief as may be available under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Order Date :- 5.10.2023
Ashok Kr.
