Court No. - 20 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 6873 of 2010 Petitioner :- Jaipal Respondent :- State Of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy.,Home & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Satyendra Kumar Singh,Abhishek Mishra Respondent Counsel :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J.
Hon’ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State as
well as perused the record.
This petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by
the petitioner for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated
11.6.2009 lodged by the Opposite Party No. 3 at Crime No. 569/2009, under
Sections 419/420/467/468/471 IPC registered at Police Station Gola, District
Lakhimpur Kheri and also for direction to the opposite parties not to arrest the
petitioner in pursuance of the said impugned First Information Report.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is is
not named in the impugned First Information Report. He is neither transferee
under the so called forged sale-deed nor he is witness thereon. He is the
father-in-law of Dharmendra who is the transferee under the sale-deed.
Dharmendra had already challenged the impugned First Information Report in
Writ Petition No. 2061 (MB) of 2010 in which the another Bench of this
Court was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition with the observation that:
“if the petitioners appear and seek bail in the aforesaid case before the courts
below within four weeks from today, the same shall be considered and
disposed of expeditiously, if possible on the same day in the light of the
principles of law laid down in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh V
State of U.P. [2009 (1) JIC 677].”
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has no concern with the execution
of the so called forged sale-deed. There is no evidence against him, therefore,
he needs protection.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the petition.
Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.G.A. for the State. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not named
in the First Information Report as well as the fact that he is neither beneficiary
under the so called forged sale-deed nor he is attesting witness thereon. We
dispose of this writ petition finally with the observation that the petitioner will
not be arrested by the Investigating officer till he collects credible and cogent
evidence against the petitioner subject to his full cooperation in the
investigation which will go on.
Order Date :- 23.7.2010
Santosh/-