Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned FIR dated 12.12.2018, in Case Crime No. 510 of 2019, under Section 420 & 409 I.P.C., Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun as well as for the stay of his arrest.

According to the FIR, the petitioner runs a fair price shop. Between 04.10.2017 to 29.10.2018, he deposited less amount in the Banks. The total amount which the petitioner received out of the sale was Rs.6,26,956/-, whereas he deposited only Rs.1,92,000/- and Rs.20,000/- total Rs.2,10,000/- and he did manipulation in the Bank Challans and reflected, as if, he had deposited more amount than actually deposited. There are other details in the FIR.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that no offence has been committed by the petitioner because he would get the grains only after depositing the money in the Bank and placing the challans at the go-down; all the Bank challans are computerized, therefore, he has not done any manipulation.

Learned counsel for the State under instructions, submits that the petitioner, in fact, had manipulated the challans and reflected amount more than what he had deposited in the Bank and thereby procured more grains but sale proceeds has not been deposited by him in the Bank.

FIR categorically states the amount which the petitioner has not deposited in the government account. The allegations are that he manipulated and forged the challans to reflects, as if he had deposited a higher amount than what he actually had deposited. In this process he procured more grains but entire sale proceeds not deposited by him. The F.I.R. discloses the commission of cognizable offence. Truthfulness of the FIR cannot be scrutinized in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this court is of the view that the petition deserves to the dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that a direction may be issued so that petitioner may be released on bail on the same day, when application for bail is filed.

8 The writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner appears before the court below and applies for bail, her bail application may be considered, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.