CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Akshay Panwar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 25 April 2019 · Citation: (2019) 04 UK CK 0139

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 420, 467, 468, 471 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Writ Petition No. 435 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 364 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned FIR dated 04.03.2019 registered as Case Crime No.41 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Prem Nagar Dehradun District Dehradun as well as for direction that the petitioner may not be arrested in pursuance to the impugned FIR.

2.

Heard and perused the records.

3.

In this matter FIR was lodged on 04.03.2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. According to it, the petitioner sold different plots to Manisha Garg, the first informant, Neha Garg and Jagdish Garg and the sale deed was registered as well but at the time of mutation, it was revealed that petitioner had already sold the land to some other persons before the execution of the sale deed in favour of the first informant and others. When the petitioner was contacted he did not respond properly.

4.

This matter was earlier listed on 18.03.2019. Today learned AGA informs that the petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that out of Rs.17 lakhs, which the petitioner had taken from the first informant and others, a sum of Rs.13,30,000/- had already been returned to them and for repaying the remaining amount he seeks some time.

6.

The averments, which are made in the first information report clearly makes out a cognizable offence. Land which the petitioner had already sold was sold by him to the first informant and two other persons. It was done in the year 2017. According to the FIR, at the time of mutation when contacted, the petitioner avoided the first informant. There are no reasons to quash the FIR. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that direction may be issued that in case petitioner appears before the court below his bail application may be disposed of on the same day.

8.

The writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner appears before the Court below, his bail application may be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.