Tanveer Ahmad vs State of Uttarakhand & others

Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the first information report dated 24.09.2015 lodged by the respondent no.3 on the basis of which a case crime no.278 of 2015 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Patelnagar, District Dehradun.

Allegations in the complaint are that petitioner in collusion with other accused persons took a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- from respondent no.3, his friends and relatives assuring them to give job in the services of State Government. But after a long time neither they provided job nor their money of Rs. 60,00,000/- returned back. It is stated that the petitioner in collusion with other accused persons grabbed the money of respondent no.3, his friends and other relatives by cheating. On the basis of which an F.I.R. was registered.

The case of the petitioner is that there was a settlement between the petitioner and respondent no.3 that petitioner would purchase the house of respondent

no.3 on sale consideration of Rs. 35,60,000/-. In this regard, a receipt was prepared and at the same point of time, the petitioner made payment of Rs. 5,60,000/- to respondent no.3. It is submitted that after taking money of Rs. 5,60,000/- from the petitioner, respondent no.3 neither executed the sale deed of property nor returned the money to the petitioner. Thus, the respondent no.3 made a false story of taking money from him, his friends and relatives.

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case set up by respondent no.3 is false one as he himself was guilty for not giving back the money of Rs. 5,60,000/-. He contended that a false complaint is lodged against the petitioner. He contended that when respondent no.3 approached the police, police did not find it appropriate to register the F.I.R. against the petitioner as there was nothing against the petitioner but an order was passed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and thereafter F.I.R. was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no amount was ever taken by the petitioner from respondent no.3, his friends and relatives. He also contended that respondent no.3 does not have any proof that any such amount was taken by the petitioner. He submits that in such circumstances, the F.I.R. deserves to be stayed during the pendency of writ petition. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that from the complaint it is clear that the petitioner has taken money not only from respondent no.3 but also from others and cheated all the persons, in such circumstances F.I.R. should not be quashed.

The Hon''ble Apex Court, in the case of State of West Bengal. Vs. Swapna Kumar, 1982 (1) SCC 561, has held that if an offence is disclosed, Court will not normally interfere with the investigation into the case, and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Whether the facts mentioned in the F.I.R are correct or not, is a matter of investigation. In my opinion it is not a fit case where the Court should intervene. It is for the Investigating Officer either to file final report or charge sheet in the matter.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and seeks bail application, his bail application shall be considered expeditiously, preferably same day.