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
6 paragraphs · 234 wordsAshwani Kumar Singh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notices on behalf of the respondents.
Under challenge is FIR relating to case crime no. 436 of 2007, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 469 IPC read with Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, police station Jagdishpur, district Sultanpur.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, but during the course of investigation his name came into light. Further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has got nothing todowith with respect to fraud, which is said to have been committed by other coaccused, namely, Kashi Ram, Rajesh Kumar Singh and bank officials by forging Khatauni of the land in question while taking a tractor on loan. It has been further argued that if there was any involvement of the petitioner in the present case, his name ought to have been figured at the initial stage when the impugned FIR was lodged.
Let the things be as they are, we dispose of the writ petition finally with a direction that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the aforesaid crime number till submission of charge sheet or report under Section 169 Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier.
Investigation shall go on and the petitioner will cooperate in the investigation.