KHAN SAULAT HANIF Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing of the F.I.R. registered at Case Crime No. 62 of 2007 under Sections 395, 397, 384 and 506, I.P.C., police station Bargarh, district Chitrakoot lodged by respondent No. 4 Ramesh Chand Jain.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations of the first information report the informant is proprietor of firm Vardhman Industrial and Trading Corporation B.K.D. College Chauraha, Gwalior Road, Jhansi and deals in the business of purchasing scrap in auction from railways. On 26.6.2007, he purchased iron scrap of P.W. 1 Shankargarh. After purchasing the said scrap he received a telephone call from the Mobile No. 9336840875 of Mohd. Shahjad who is an associate of Atiq Ahmad, Member of Parliament threatening him that he had committed big mistake by purchasing the goods and he should be ready for heavy financial losses and reminded him that earlier also an attack was made on him at the office of P.W. 1, Shankergarh and at that time Jafar Bhai, Farooq Bhai and Shaulat Vakeel warned him that he should not purchase the goods at Shankergarh and Allahabad and also threatened him not to register the F.I.R. otherwise he will be killed. It was further mentioned in the report that he tried to lodge the report against them but on account of influence of Atiq Ahmad, he could not lodge the report. He did not succumb to the threats extended to him and between 1.8.2007 and 4.8.2007 he started lifting the iron of P.W.I. Shankergarh and in the night at about 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. on 4.8.2007 when his loaded Truck was parked near Madhyamik Vidyalay, Kataiya Dandi Road near Police Station, Bargarh in a planned manner the persons named in the report through Aslam and 15-20 persons forcibly looted the goods and loaded the same in Truck No. UP 60-T 0687 and his three chaukidar Jai Prakas, Naim Khan and Sunil Raikwar were assaulted on the point of gun and money was also snatched from their pockets and after tying them with a rope they escaped alongwith the looted iron. His chaukidar, Jai Prakash informed him on telephone about the incident and told him that they had also demanded Rs. two lacs from him and also threatened him not to purchase the goods otherwise he will be killed. After receiving the information he came to Bargarh from Allahabad and lodged the report.

(3.) SRI Kazmi further submitted that no allegations have been made against the petitioner which could attract the penal provisions and the allegations made in the impugned report are highly improbable. It was pointed out that according to the averments made in the report the Truck in which the goods were looted had covered only two kms. in 12 hours before it was recovered by the police and no prudent man can believe these allegations as true. Attentions of the Court was also drawn to paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the petition where other instances were mentioned about registration of false reports against the lawyers of Atiq Ahmad.