HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 1487 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shri Prakash Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Prasad
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon’ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Hon’ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Shri. Kaushal Kishore Mani holding brief of Shri.Ravindra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents concerned, not to make any kind of harassment and threaten to arrest the petitioner, with a further prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R dated 17.9.2019 registered as Case Crime No.705/2019, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Khorabar, District-Gorakhpur.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of documents appended in the writ petition as also in the supplementary affidavit the dispute if any, relates to construction in a lesser area than assigned under the contract, construction being contrary to the prescribed plan, as also absence of 2 RCC constructions are nature of civil dispute, which can only be adjudicated before an arbitrator, couple with the fact that substantial payments are still due to the respondents, F.I.R. is malafidely motivated only with a view to coerce the petitioner to come to terms.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A has opposed the submission.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned FIR as well as the other material brought on record, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer for quashing the FIR is refused.
However, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to his cooperation during investigation.
We find that learned counsel for the petitioner has appended the photographs in the copy meant for one of us and not for the another Judge, in lieu thereof, a xerox of the photograph has been supplied, which is not only derogatory/demeaning but absolutely unacceptable. The least learned counsel for the petitioner could have done to annex the photograph in original for both of us.
We direct the Stamp Reporter that no writ petition shall be entertained at his/her level, unless photographs in original are supplied for the Judge/Judges sitting in a Bench.