Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1543 (ALL)

Amit Negi v. State of U. P.

2017-06-17

KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH, VIKRAM NATH

body2017
JUDGMENT The matter has been taken up today in the presence of learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Sand, learned A.G.A-I and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned A.G.A. representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Issue notice to respondent No. 4 fixing 28.06.2017. Steps may be taken up within 48 hours. In addition to the normal mode of service the petitioner shall serve Dasti Notices upon respondent No. 4 for which steps maybe taken on or before 20.06.2017 whereupon office will handover the Dasti Notices within the next 24 hours. Notice may be served personally upon respondent Nos. 4 within the next three days. An affidavit of service may be filed on or before the next date fixed. Put up in the additional cause list on 28.06.2017. Sri Samit Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that the petitioner is a practicing lawyer of this Court having standing of 23 years and commands respect amongst the members of the Bar and Bench. The petitioner has an impeccable reputation and there have never been any kind of complaints and misconduct of any other nature. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned F.I.R. as drafted does not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioner. Mere presence of the petitioner at the time when the statements of the co-accused Vice-Chancellor were recorded that the petitioner was perplexed is merely an observation which is neither verifiable nor it can be the basis of the alleged involvement of the petitioner and it cannot, in any manner, attribute any complicity of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. does not mention that any amount was received by the petitioner but it refers to receiving of amounts from the institution by another co-accused, directly through cheques. It is also submitted that the offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 IPC, therefore, cannot be said to have been made out against the petitioner at the instance of the complainant. In such circumstances learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the impugned F.I.R. may be quashed and at this stage interim protection may be provided to the petitioner. In such circumstances learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the impugned F.I.R. may be quashed and at this stage interim protection may be provided to the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been roped in only because he was a panel counsel of an institute, which is neither here nor there. On the other hand learned A.G.As present before us have strongly opposed the prayer for interim protection and submitted that F.I.R. discloses cognizable offence. However they have not been able to refer to any part of the impugned F.I.R. which may disclose any offence against the petitioner under which the F.I.R. has been lodged. Having considered the submissions and having perused the impugned F.I.R. we are prima facie of the view that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner as such petitioner is entitled to interim relief. Till further orders of this Court petitioner shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 0329 of 2017, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 409 IPC, P.S. Cantt. District Allahabad of course subject to the restraint that the petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation. Certified copy of this order may be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges today itself. Leaned A.G.A. be provided a copy of this order today itself free of costs.