Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 17 (ALL)

Amit v. State of U. P.

2021-01-05

GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, K.J.THAKER

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State. 2. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the F.I.R. dated 6.10.2020 in Case Crime No. 0409 of 2020 under Sections 147, 506 I.P.C. and 10(1) U.P. Regulation of Money - Lending Act 1976, Police Station - Badalpur District-Gautambudhnagar. (ii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of F.I.R. dated 6.10.2020 in Case Crime No. 0409 of 2020 under Section 147, 506 I.P.C. and 10(1) U.P. Regulation of Money-lending Act 1976, Police Station - Badalpur District-Gautambudhnagar. (iii) Issue any such other and further order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. The brief facts as culled out from the records and the petition are that the respondent No. 3, Kuldeep Kumar lodged an First Information Report against the petitioners and criminal intimation. This complain was lodging on 6.10.2020. The police authorities registered the same as F.I.R. dated 6.10.2020 in Case Crime No. 0409 of 2020 under Sections 147, 506 I.P.C. and 10(1) U.P. Regulation of Money - Lending Act 1976, Police Station - Badalpur District-Gautambudhnagar. The First Information Report dated 6.10.2020 is lodged against all the three brothers who were alleged to have been involved in money lending business. 4. It is stated that the petitioners have falsely implicated in the said F.I.R. after a malicious thought, according to learned counsel for petitioners, hence, not carried out the investigation and he is trying to harass the petitioners and it is submitted that the F.I.R. does not discloses any prima facie case. 5. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that there are serious disputed questions of fact and this Court should not interfere into the factual data as the investigation is going on and there are facts which can be said to be in the realm of disputed questions of fact. 6. The Apex Court in catena of decisions has cautioned, the High Courts show causing its jurisdiction way the F.I.R. prima facie for the complaint and the evidence which may be collected would show that offence has been made out. 7. 6. The Apex Court in catena of decisions has cautioned, the High Courts show causing its jurisdiction way the F.I.R. prima facie for the complaint and the evidence which may be collected would show that offence has been made out. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court, further in the various precedents i.e. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill; (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi; (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. and others; 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, has made crystal clear that if a prima facie case is made out, the Court should not quash the complaint. On the contrary, it was held that the Courts should not hesitate to quash the complaint if no prima facie case is made out. However, as a note of caution while considering such petitions, the Courts should be careful. Thus, there is no conundrum about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the F.I.R. or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 8. Should we quash the complaints where serious allegations of money laundering under the regulations of U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976? We have expressed our mind to the learned counsel that the petitioners may move for anticipatory bail before the competent Court. 9. The First Information Report prima facie has to be looked into for quashment for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that only with a view to arrest the petitioners and show that the complainant who has taken money may not have to repay this complaint is lodged. The petitioners are lending money whether they have the licence to lend or not is not on record and question requires to be investigated. 11. In that view of the matter, we do not think that any case is made out for interference by this Court. It cannot be said that they have been falsely implicated in the said first Information Report, they should thanks the police officials who have for a period of three months not cause they arrest as the complaint is filed in the month of October, 2020. 12. The petition being devoid of merits, does not require our issuance of certiorari of mandamus writ. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.