Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3819 (ALL)

Ajit Singh v. State of U. P.

2015-12-04

BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2015
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned F.I.R. in case crime no. 482 of 2015, under sections 419, 420, 468 and 469 IPC, P.S. G.R.P., district Kanpur Nagar. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution of the petitioners on the allegations made in the FIR to the effect that they have forged the concession form of the informant and the other members of his football team is nothing but abuse of process of law inasmuch as on the basis of the aforesaid allegations no offence against the petitioners is disclosed. He further submitted that apart from the bald allegations made in the FIR there is no evidence is coming forthwith indicating at the complicity of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime. The impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.4 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about three months as a counter blast to the football team of the respondent no.3 being placed under suspension pursuant to the complaint filed against the respondent no.3 and the other members of his team by the petitioner no.1 before the Secretary, District Football Association, Kanpur and in view of the above, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the impugned FIR on the basis of the allegation made in the FIR, it cannot be said that no offence against the petitioners is disclosed as the veracity of the allegations made therein can only be ascertain during investigation and no case for quashing of the impugned FIR is made out. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also failed to make out any case. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR, we are not inclined to quash the impugned FIR. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also failed to make out any case. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR, we are not inclined to quash the impugned FIR. 6. However, considering the nature of the allegations made in the FIR, the provisions of section 157 Cr.P.C. and the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Versus State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J., 1981, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the credible evidence is not collected by the I.O. during pendency of the investigation. 7. With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.