Court No. - 20 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 7056 of 2010 Petitioner :- Lal Pratap Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.And Petitioner Counsel :- Om Prakash Vishwakarma Respondent Counsel :- G.A.,Santosh Kr Yadav Warsi Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J.
Hon’ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Ram Narain Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the
petitioners is taken on record. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the
complainant, opposite party no.4, Gangadhar Tripathi, is also taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. and perused the
F.I.R.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per
allegations of the First Information Report the petitioners committing
forgery, has established new institution named as Rajeshwarnath Kanya Purva
Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mangapur, Vikas Khand, Sangipur, District
Pratapgarh but there is no evidence against the petitioners that they had
committed forgery. In fact the complainant is a Manager of Gramin Shishu
Kalyan Samiti, Udaipur, District Pratapgarh but the Managing Committee of
the school has not been duly cheated. In fact there is a dispute between the
society of Rajeshwarnath Kanya Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and the
Gramin Shishu Kalyan Samiti, Udaipur which can be decided by the Deputy
Registrar of the societies. The complainant has lodged the impugned First
Information Report with false allegations. Therefore the accused-petitioners
deserve interim protection during the investigation.
Learned A.G.A. assisted by the learned private counsel for the complainant
have opposed the petition and argued that the petitioners playing fraud have
established a new institution namely Gramin Shishu Kalyan Samiti, Udaipur,
District Pratapgarh. They have grabbed the property of the Rajeshwarnath
Kanya Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mangapur, Vikas Khand, Sangipur,
keeping in view the nature of offence the accused-petitioners do not deserve
for interim protection.
Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.G.A., keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as
well as the allegation of the complainant in the F.I.R. which discloses
commission of cognizable offence, the writ petition is finally disposed of with
the observation that till any credible and cogent evidence is collected against
the petitioners or filing of the charge-sheet/police report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, whichever is earlier, the petitioners (Lal
Pratap Singh and Gaya Bux Singh) will not be arrested by the Investigating
Officer in Case Crime No.153 of 2010, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468,
471 I.P.C., Police Station Udaipur, District Pratapgarh subject to their
cooperation in the investigation which will go on.
Order Date :- 29.7.2010
PAL