RAJDEO GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for issuing a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 1-2-2006 relating to case crime No. 56 of 2006 under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 I. P. C. police station Patna lodged by respondent No. 7; a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 to transfer the investigation being conducted by investigating officer of police station Kotwali, District Patna in Bihar to the respondent No. 6 or any other investigating agency of U. P. police; a writ order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 or any other investigating agency of Bihar police from taking any further steps in respect of case crime No. 56 of 2006 under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 I. P. C. police station Patna lodged by respondent No. 7; a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest and not harass the petitioners in respect of case crime No. 56 of 2006 under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 I. P. C. police station Patna lodged by respondent No. 7; and a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that First Information Report was lodged by respondent No. 7 against the petitioners with the allegations that the petitioners who are resident of 8-A Beli Road, New Katra, Allahabad has taken an advance of Rs. 25,000/- at Patna towards the sale of land and house situated at 8b-B, Beli Road, New Katra, Allahabad. THE informant had made payment vide cheque No. 426013 of Vijaya Bank, Beli road Branch, Allahabad. It was a post dated cheque bearing date 12-4-2004 and was delivered to the petitioners at Patna towards the said payment. It was further alleged that it was clearly mentioned on the back of the cheque that the said amount of Rs. 25,000/- was in respect of advance payment of the land and a house at 8b-B, Beli Road, New Katra, Allahabad. THE said cheque was deposited by Raj Deo Gupta in his S. B. Account No. 7468 on 12-4-2004 and the amount was credited in his account. THE petitioner No. 1 took further payment of Rs. 50,000/- from the informant which was paid vide cheque No. 426015 dated 18-5-2004. It was also mentioned that this amount is in respect of part payment towards the purchase of the land and a house. THE informant had contacted Shri Rajdeo Gupta and Shri Sanjay Kumar alias Tony several times for execution of the sale-deed in respect of the said house and also sent letters by speed post/upc from Patna for the same. It was further alleged that the informant came to know that petitioners have cheated him and fraudulently sold the house to some other person without informing him and misappropriated the money received by them. THE said report was registered at case crime No. 56 of 2006 under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 I. P. C.

(3.) THE law is well-settled regarding interference by the High Court with an investigation of a case. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1990 (2) JIC 997 (SC) : 1992 SCC (Crl) 426, the Apex Court gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, making it clear that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly-defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: "102. (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. "