Anubhav Mittal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 523 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.348 of 2023

Anubhav Mittal                                               ....Petitioner

                                    Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                             ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. Ramji Shirvastava, Advocate for the petitioners.
            Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. with Ms. Shiwali Joshi,
            Brief Holder for the State.

                               JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR

No.0318 of 2022, dated 27.11.2022, under Section 420, 406

and 120-B IPC, Police Station Dalanwala District- Dehradun

with related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the informant was

persuaded by co-accused Shweta Sharma that it is the

petitioner and co-accused, who could finance Rs. 80 crores

for his hotel project. The co-accused, Shweta Sharma, in fact,

arranged a meeting in Delhi, where the petitioner and co-

accused met the informant and assured that they would help

him to get Rs. 80 crores loan, and, thereafter, he was

persuaded to give Rs. 30 lakhs as security.

The FIR also records that, in fact, the petitioner and co-

accused visited the hotel site of the informant. The informant

paid Rs. 20 lakhs by way of online transactions to the co-

accused. But, thereafter, neither the loan was sanctioned nor

the money, paid by the informant, was returned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner has not persuaded the informant to deliver

any property; the money was not deposited in any account

held by the petitioner; the petitioner has no role in the entire

deal; he apprehends his arrest by the investigating officer

without following the mandatory provisions of law.

5. It is a petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. If an FIR discloses commission of any

offences, generally, no interference is warranted. Here in the

instant case, it is the categorical case of the informant that

co-accused Shweta Sharma persuaded the informant that she

would help the informant to secure Rs. 80 crores loan for his

hotel project and in that process, a meeting was arranged

with the petitioner and co-accused, who assured the

informant that they would help the informant to get Rs. 80

crores loan. They visited the site of the informant. In that

belief, according to the FIR, the informant gave Rs. 20 lakhs

to the co-accused.

6. The FIR definitely discloses the commission of

offences. It is an offence of cheating. It is argued that no

offence under Section 406 IPC is made out. This Court , at

this stage, may not record as to which offence, as such, is

made out from a bare perusal of the FIR. Suffice to say, the

FIR discloses commission of offences. There are categorical

allegations against the petitioner. In fact, according to the

allegations in the FIR, it is the petitioner, who also assured

the informant that they would help the informant to get loan.

They visited the site of the hotel, also.

7. Insofar as the apprehension of arrest is

concerned, the petitioner is free to seek such remedy against

his apprehension, as is permissible under law. That may not

be a ground to entertain such writ petition.

8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that

there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the

petition deserves to be dismissed, at the stage of admission

itself.

9. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 27.02.2023 Ravi Bisht