RAJENDRA SINGH CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.M.A. Abdy and Rahul Dubey, learned counsels for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the averments made in the first information report and rejection order.

(2.) Brief facts as narrated in the first information report are that the applicant and the first informant are real brothers and they were running several businesses in partnership. It is alleged that the applicant who is a history-sheeter and a criminal prepared a forged partnership deed and got it renewed deleting the name of certain partners and also opened a fake account in the name of partnership fund in Punjab National Bank. The dispute in respect of the partnership firm started between the applicant and first informant in the year 2012 and the electricity connection was also got disconnected and the first informant had informed the Executive Engineer that no fresh connection of electricity of the petrol pump be issued. But the applicant who is a very cunning man got a new electric connection of the petrol pump by forging documents. The applicant also got the Sales Tax Registration TIN number of the firm M/s Singh Career cancelled and afterwards the applicant obtained a fresh TIN number and started operation of the petrol pump. It is stated that in bank accounts also he got the names of partnership changed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that admittedly the applicant and the first informant are real brothers and certain dispute arose between them in respect of the firm and on account of several dispute and differences the F.I.R. was lodged by the first informant with the object of injuring and humiliating the applicant by having so arrested. In this behalf, several orders passed by different courts have also been appended with the affidavit and at this stage, prima facie, no case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. is made out. Learned counsel has further submitted that inadvertently in Para 6 of the affidavit, it has been mentioned that the applicant is not involved in any kind of criminal activities, however, in the rejoinder affidavit due explanation has been given in Para 7 of the rejoinder affidavit. He has mainly laid stress in respect of Case Crime No.1865 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi and it has been submitted that the applicant was not named in the first information report rather the first informant Gurjeet Singh Chawla and five others were arrested in the case and sent to jail. The true copy of the first information report has been annexed as Annexure-RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. It is stated that so far as the other cases are concerned, they are very old cases. In Para 18 of the rejoinder affidavit, it is stated that the first informant Gurjeet Singh Chawla is also a history-sheeter and his History Sheet Number is 14B of P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi. The details of the cases showing involvement of the first informant have been stated in Para 8 of the rejoinder affidavit. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the letter of SSP, Jhansi declaring the first informant Gurjeet Singh Chawla as a land mafia; copy of the letter has been annexed as Annexure-RA-4 to the rejoinder affidavit. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.