Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3458 (ALL)

B. C. Gupta v. State Of U. P.

2010-11-10

RAJ MANI CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT: Raj Mani Chauhan, J. Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, Advocate puts in appearance and files his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No.5, which is taken on record. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioners B.C. Gupta, Sunil Gupta and Mukesh Gupta with the following prayers:- 1. " May kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 27.7.2010, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on the application under Section 156 (3) of the Code, in case No. 460 of 2010; Pramod Bajaj Vs. B.C. Gupta and others and to quash the F.I.R. No. 566/10, dated 15.8.10, at P.S. Hazratganj with costs. 2. The FIR with registration no. 566/10 may also be quashed being registered on fake and false grounds. 3. In both complaint cases (671/10 and 681/10 exactly identical allegations were levelled against the father & brothers & sister of the petitioner no. 1's daughter and Hon'ble Court has since stayed the proceedings of those cases, as the petitioners & main complainant & the allegation levelled are exactly identical the same day may be heard together with those cases and dealt with suitably. 4.In addition to this the proceedings of the case may kindly be stayed till the disposal of instant petition. 5. It is further prayed that the genuineness of the address of opposite party no.5 may be got verified. As? communication sent by Rohini (Delhi) court have been returned undelivered with the remarks that house with the no. 3/327 Vinay Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow does not exist. 6. It is, therefore, requested that both the telephone numbers may be got verified i.e. telephone no. from which the call was made to the opposite party no.5's telephone number at which the call was made. 7. To direct the official at Hazratganj, state and secretary Lucknow Medical Association, enquires in respect of Doctor at EMO of Balrampur hospital, Lucknow for the unethical medical practice and unresponsible conduct while giving the MLC report of opposite party no.5 (Pramod Bajaj) on the aforestated different dates only on the basis of these bogus and frivolous MLC given by doctor. The different FIR/Complaint cases have been registered". Ms. The different FIR/Complaint cases have been registered". Ms. Rakhee appears on behalf of the petitioners on the basis of power of attorney given by the petitioners and argued that the opposite party No.5 Pramod Bajaj playing fraud had entered into marriage with her. He has lodged so many criminal cases against her and her family members which are pending before the concerned court. She and her family members are being unnecessary harassed by the opposite party No.5. Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition. He submits that this petition under Section 482 of the Code is mainly for quashing of the F.I.R. which is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in a case Ram Lal Yadava Vs. State of U.P. and other, reported in 1989 (26) ACC, 181; rather the petitioners should have filed petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before Division Bench. Ms. Rakhee? who is not counsel for the petitioners, cannot be heard on the basis of power of attorney. It is only the petitioners who can be heard in person or their authorized counsel. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the opposite party No.5 Pramod Bajaj had? filed an application? under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow for direction to the Station House Officer of Police Station concerned to register and investigate the case against the accused which was allowed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 27.7.2010. In pursuance of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the police of Police Station Hazratganj, registered a case against the accused. Basically, this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R.? which is not maintainable under Section 482 of the Code in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench? of this Court in Ram Lal Yadava (Supra).? The petition for quashing of the F.I.R. lies before Division Bench. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable. However, it will be open for the petitioners to file petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the F.I.R. before the appropriate Bench, if they are so advised.