ABHISHEK GARG Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Gopal S Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Manu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rahul Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, and Mr. Vimlendu Tripathi, learned AGA, for the respondents-State.

(2.) Respondent No. 3 is the complainant. He lodged an FIR on 23.2017, which has been registered as Crime No. 260 of 2017 for the offences, punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 417, 120-B I.P.C. at Vrindavan Police Station, District Mathura. The FIR and the allegations made therein revolve around a sale-deed allegedly executed by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioners 2 to 4 and the complainant-respondent No. 3 on 4.6.1998. In short, the allegation against the petitioners in the FIR, is that petitioner No. 1 had no authority in law to execute the sale-deed on behalf of M/s Shyam Sung Investment and Finance Pvt. Ltd., fraudulently showing the complainant-respondent No. 3 also as a vendee in the said sale deed. We are not narrating the facts/allegations in detail since counsel for the parties have agreed for the order suggested by us. Though, we are not entering into the merits of allegations against the accused, it is necessary to mention that a civil suit for cancellation of the sale-deed filed by the complainant in Sept. 2004 is still pending consideration/disposal.

(3.) Before we dispose of the petition, we are constrained to observe that our attention has been invited on more than one occasion to interim orders passed by different Division Benches of this Court restraining the investigating authorities from taking any "coercive action" against accused persons named in First Information Reports. While we do not for a moment doubt the jurisdiction of the Court exercising powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution to pass such interim orders of protection when so warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, we must also note that the grant of such reliefs without the petitioners therein being put to conditions can have a serious and deleterious effect on the conduct of the investigation as well as the effectiveness of the investigating authority to conclude the same with expedition. We are of the considered view that even where the facts warrant some interim protection being accorded to the accused at that stage, the same must necessarily be made subject to the accused cooperating in the investigation and being directed to attend the police station concerned and making themselves available to the investigating authority for the purposes of enquiry and investigation.