Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 49164 (ALL)

ABDUL KALAM AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS

CRLP/8403/2025 · 2025-04-29

Vivek Kumar Birla, Yogesh Dubey Joint Registrar Judicial

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67062-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8403 of 2025 Petitioner :- Abdul Kalam And Another Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Pandey,Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J. 1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A for the State respondents. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 09.04.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 0101 of 2025 under Sections 419, 420 IPC, Police Station Kopaganj, District Mau. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case although it is submitted that the amount has been deposited by the informant and by drawing attention to paragraph 11 of the petition it is submitted that the petitioners are willing to return the actual amount to the informant but the informant is not willing to take the same. The petitioners have no previous criminal history and in fact there was money dispute pending between the parties. 4. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR. 5. On perusal of records, we find that the specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner, according to which money was taken for providing job in foreign countries for which the amount was deposited by the informant in the account of petitioners and Delhi Police has raided the premises of the petitioners where the passports of the brother of the informant as well as passport of the relatives of the informant were found and after inquiry passport were returned to the informant. 6. We, therefore, find that a cognizable offence is made out and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Nitendra Digitally signed by :- NITENDRA TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad