BRAJMOHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gambhir Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of F.I.R dtd. 18/2/2021 registered as Case Crime No. 83 of 2021 for the offence under Ss. 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur with a further prayer to stay the arrest of the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and is a counterblast only to create pressure upon the petitioners and the respondent no.4 has lodged the present first information report against the petitioners to save his skin. It is argued that civil proceedings is going on between the parties. It is argued that the respondent no.4 executed a sale-deed in favour of petitioner no.2 on 8/4/2019 after receiving a total consideration of Rs.25,00,000.00 in which a cheque of Rs.5,75,000.00 was given to the respondent no.4 and there was nothing due against the petitioner no.2. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 requested the petitioner no.2 for payment of Rs.5,75,000.00 in cash and the petitioner no.2 then paid the same in cash and requested the respondent no.4 to return the said cheque of Rs.5,75,000.00 but he did not return the said cheque. The cheque was then produced in the bank on 26/6/2019 by the respondent no.4 which bounced due to insufficient funds. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed on 10/7/2019. A compliant under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act has also been filed by the respondent no.4 against the petitioner no.1. An application was given by the respondent no.4 to the S.S.P. concerned against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 which was inquired into by Sub Inspector who recommended proceedings under Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. for which notices have been issued by the S.D.M. concerned. It is argued that the respondent no.4 has not returned the said cheque of Rs.5,75,000.00, in spite of the fact that money has been paid to him in cash subsequently by the petitioner no.2 on his request. It is argued that since the said cheque was not returned and the respondent no.4 was threatening and harassing the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 lodged a first information report against the respondent no.4 and his wife. Thereafter, a final order was passed by the S.D.M. concerned against which a revision was preferred in which the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded. As a counterblast, the present first information report has been registered. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Agarwal and others Vs. Sanjay Sharma and others: Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2021 and places paragraph 7 before the Court to buttress his submission and has proceeded to argue that the Apex Court has in identical circumstances quashed the criminal proceedings of the said case by means of the said judgement and, hence, the present F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.