SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohamad Suaib (In Fir … vs State Of … on 29 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

?Court No. – 9

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. – 15975 of 2021

Petitioner :- Mohamad Suaib (In Fir Mohd.Shoaib)

Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Home,Lucknow Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Pathak,Adarsh Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Samrendra Nath Pandey

Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.

Heard Sri Gyanendra Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record. However, Sri Samrendra Nath Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.4 is not present.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- Mohamad Suaib (In F.I.R. Mohd.Shoaib), seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 06.06.2021 lodged by opposite party no.4 as F.I.R. No. 0201/2021, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow with a further prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.3 to not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid F.I.R.

Learned counsel for petitioner argued that there was an agreement to sale between the petitioner and respondent no.4 regarding the vehicle of the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner wanted to sell the vehicle for Rs.24 lakhs but the deal could not be finalized and thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any amount from the private respondent. Lastly, the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that impugned F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner just for harassment and with oblique motive, hence the present F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. He further submits that it transpires from the impugned F.I.R. that Rs.13,20,000/- was paid to the petitioner by way of cash and through bank transaction by the informant and the vehicle in question was taken back by the petitioner and also the impugned F.I.R. discloses a cognizable offence against the petitioner, and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned F.I.R., which discloses, cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the F.I.R. or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner.

The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

(Saroj Yadav,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)

Order Date :- 29.7.2021

Shubhankar

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation