Amit Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2606 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

      Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1244 of 2023
Amit Singh                                .............Petitioner

                             Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others             ........Respondents
Present:-
            Mr. Nalin Saun, Advocate for the petitioner appeared
            through video conferencing.
            Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey and Mr. Rakesh Negi,
            Brief     Holders      for     the      State      of
            Uttarakhand/respondent nos.1 and 2.

                         JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to

FIR/Case Crime No.146 of 2023, dated 04.04.2023,

under Section 420, 506 IPC, Police Station Raipur,

District Dehradun.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The FIR in the instant case has been lodged by

the respondent no.3 ("the informant"). According to it, the

petitioner induced the informant to deliver money under

the promise that some property would be transferred in

the name of the informant. The owner of the property was

one Bharat Bhushan Gupta. On this assurance,

according to the FIR on 12.01.2022, an amount of `30

Lacs was transferred in the account of the petitioner and

money was transferred in others accounts also. The FIR

records that total `1,36,00,000/- (` One Crore and Thirty

Six Lacs only) was transferred in the accounts of the

petitioner and the co-accused, but subsequently, the

petitioner declined to sell the property.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that all the parties are property dealers. Now, the

dispute has already been settled and the property has

been transferred in the name of the informant by the co-

accused Bharat Bhushan Gupta.

5. The Court wanted to know from the learned

counsel for the petitioner, as to whether on 12.01.2022

the petitioner had any agreement with Bharat Bhushan

Gupta? The answer is in negative. The question is, if the

petitioner has no agreement with the real owner on

12.01.2022, how could he induce someone to deliver

money to him? The FIR categorically records that on that

date `30 Lacs was deposited in the account of the

petitioner. In what capacity did the petitioner take the

money? For what purpose he obtained the money? He

was not the owner.

6. This is writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. If FIR discloses commission of

offences, generally no interference is warranted unless

there are compelling circumstances to do so.

7. If subsequently the sale-deed has been

executed, does it mean that the offence has been

compounded by the parties? The instant petition is not on

the basis of any compounding of the offences between the

parties. The averments as made in the FIR and in view of

the arguments that have been made, this Court is of the

view that the FIR discloses commission of offences. What

is the truthfulness of this FIR it will fall for scrutiny

during investigation or trial, as the case may be.

Therefore, there is no reason to make any interference in

this petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be

dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

8. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 04.09.2023 Sanjay