Uttarakhand High Court
Sachin Gaur vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 26 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1600 of 2022
Sachin Gaur ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. .....Respondents
Present:
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Dy. Advocate General for the State.
Date of hearing and order: 26.08.2022
Sri S.K. Mishra, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner being accused
in FIR No. 208 of 2022 registered in the commission of
offence under Sections 420, 323, 504 and 506 of the Penal
Code at P.S. Kotdwar District Pauri Garhwal, has prayed for
quashing of the FIR.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that he is not guilty of the offence, and, therefore, the FIR
should be quashed.
4. It is apparent from the record that the averments
made in the FIR reveals that the petitioner represented
before the complainant that he has purchased certain lands
from another person and they agree to purchase the same
for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1.15 crores (one crore
fifteen lakh rupees) and entered with an agreement with
him. He also allegedly shown an agreement executed by
him with the original owner of the property. In pursuance of
said agreement, the informant deposited a total sum of Rs.
40,50,000/- (forty lakh and fifty thousand rupees) in
different accounts as per the request of the present
petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further
submit that since land belongs to some other person and
money has been transferred to that person, the offence is
not made out against him. However, we are of the opinion
that from the contents of the FIR the role of the petitioner is
quite clear. He entered into an agreement with the
informant and in pursuance thereof money has been
transferred to the accounts as per the directions of the
petitioner, therefore, the offence under Section 420 of the
Penal Code appears to be made out which need to be
investigated. Moreover, in a writ petition, for a prayer of
quashing of the FIR, the Court should exercise its power
sparingly in rarest of the rare cases.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra 2021
SCC Online 315, while considering an appeal arisen out of
a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, has given certain guidelines taking into
consideration its several earlier judgments. In Neeharika's
case (supra) the Supreme Court has observed that police
has statutory rights and duties under the relevant
provisions of the Code to investigate into a cognizable
case. The Supreme Court further held that in only those
cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind
is disclosed in the FIR, then the Court should not permit
an investigation to go on and while examining
FIR/complaint quashing of which is sought, the Court
cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability and
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR or in the complainant.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
opinion that , prima facie, case is made out which
requires investigation, and, therefore, this Court does not
find any reason, prima facie, to issue notice to the
petitioner.
8. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.)
(Urgent copies as per Rules)
PV
