Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1453 (ALL)

Nasim and Others v. State of U. P. and Others

2011-06-22

DILIP GUPTA, PANKAJ MITHAL

body2011
Dilip Gupta and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. Nasim, Akhtar and Abdul Salam have filed this petition for quashing the First Information Report dated 23rd July, 2010 in Case Crime No.609 of 2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B Indian Penal Code at Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the order dated 18th April, 2011 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur and the order dated 20th April, 2011 passed by the Circle Officer, Deoband Saharanpur. Further relief that has been sought is that the petitioners may not be arrested pursuant to the aforesaid First Information Report. 2. Sri A.K. Maurya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has pointed out that all the aforesaid three petitioners had earlier filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16412 of 2010 for quashing the same First Information Report dated 23rd July, 2010 in Case Crime No.609 of 2010 which petition was disposed of on 1st September, 2010 by a detailed order, but the filing of the earlier petition and its disposal have not been disclosed by the petitioners in this petition. 3. The order dated 1st September, 2010 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16412 of 2010 is as follows:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of an FIR in case crime No. 609 of 2010, under sections 420,467,468,471,120-B IPC, police station Deoband, district Saharanpur. The writ court is not competent to go into questions of facts and on the allegations, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is disclosed. Hence, no ground exists for quashing the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners. However, in the circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the petitioners move an application for surrender before the court concerned within three weeks from today, the Magistrate concerned shall fix a date about two weeks thereafter for the appearance of the petitioners and in the meantime release the petitioners on interim bail on such terms and conditions as the court concerned considers fit and proper till the date fixed for the disposal of the regular bail. The court concerned shall also direct the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions from the investigating officer by the date fixed and as far as possible also give an opportunity of hearing to the informant and thereafter decide the regular bail application of the petitioners in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, 2004 (57) ALR 290, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, 2009 (2) Crime 4 (SC) and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan Vs. State of UP and others, 2009 (65) ACC 781. If further instructions are needed or if adjournment of the case on the date fixed for hearing becomes unavoidable, the Court may fix another date, and may also extend the earlier order granting interim bail, if it deems fit. In case the petitioners fail to appear before the court concerned on the dates fixed or they fail to cooperate with the investigating officer during interrogation, it will be open to the Public Prosecutor to move an application for cancelling the order of interim/final bail and the Court concerned may pass an appropriate order on merits. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of." 4. Sri Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that though some of the petitioners of the earlier writ petition may be the petitioners in this petition but what we find from a perusal of the earlier Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16412 of 2010 is that all the three petitioners were the three petitioners in the earlier writ petition. The filing of the earlier writ petition has not been disclosed in this petition though the same First Information Report has been assailed. The petitioners have, therefore, concealed material and vital facts from this Court. The conduct of the petitioners, therefore, needs to be deprecated. 5. In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioners before the Registrar General of the Court within three weeks from today. If the said amount is not deposited, the Registrar General shall intimate the Collector, Saharanpur who shall proceed to recover the amount as arrears of land within three months. In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioners before the Registrar General of the Court within three weeks from today. If the said amount is not deposited, the Registrar General shall intimate the Collector, Saharanpur who shall proceed to recover the amount as arrears of land within three months. The amount so collected shall be transmitted to the Registrar General of the Court for being deposited in the account of Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. 6. Copy of the order may be placed before the Registrar General of the Court.