DEEPAK JAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, prayer has been made to quash the First Information Report in case Crime No. 321 of 2001, under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar.

(2.) THE background facts giving rise to the aforesaid case as narrated in the First Information Report may briefly be stated thus :

(3.) THERE are two series : - one by the informant and other by the petitioner, proprietor of the transport company. According to the informant the bills are forged and do not belong to his firm and are not issued by his firm. Whereas the case of the petitioner is that the informant deposited the goods for transportation and handed over the bills to his agent for transportation. This plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted on its face value to through the FIR allegations overboard. A reading of FIR prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence which requires to be investigated and taken to logical end by the police. It is well -settled by a catena of decisions of the apex Court as well as of this High Court and other High Courts that extra -ordinary writ jurisdiction or inherent power to quash a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Founding fathers of the Constitution have not provided under what circumstances writ jurisdiction in such matters should be exercised by the High Court. So when the Court is invested with unbridled and unrestricted power, its exercise should be with circumspection where law so demands.