# Amit & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 332 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-01-05 - **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 16806 of 2020 - **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Gautam Chowdhary - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47092 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote A.G.A. FIR challenged-stating false implication-against three brothers-FIR has to be looked prima facie for invoking writ jurisdiction-no case for interference. W.P. dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: 1.Rupan Deol Bajaj Vs K.P.S. Gill, (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059 ## Text 332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the matter is pending before the Magistrate yet police investigation is being carried on without any approval of the Magistrate which cannot be countenanced in law. The submission appears to be attractive but deserves to be rejected only on the premise that Section 210 of the Code itself contemplates such a scenario wherein the learned Magistrate is vested with the powers to consolidate and proceed as a police case while staying the complaint proceedings and after calling a police report from the Investigating Officer. 11. We now propose to deal with the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. The judgments of the learned Single Judges in Dharmendra Swami vs. State of U.P. (2007) 2 JIC 275 and Harkesh vs. State of U.P., (2002) Cr.L.J. 285 and the decisions of the Apex Court in H.S. Bains (supra), India Carat Pvt. Ltd. (supra) essentially rely on Abhinandan Jha (supra) that Magistrate is not bound with the conclusion of the police report, opining that no offence is made out and that in an appropriate case the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of protest petition, which is an undisputed position. The decision in A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1984 SC 718 deals with an issue involving a private complaint lodged under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, before a Special Court wherein the Apex Court inter alia held that Special Judge was competent to take cognizance on a private complaint. Lastly reliance is placed on Suresh Chand Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 571 which unfortunately has no relevance with the fact in issue. 12. We, in the ultimate analysis, are of the view that the orders impugned relating to transfer of investigation and handing over the cases to the Crime Branch do not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. 13. The writ petition is dismissed. ---------- (2021)07ILR A332 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 16806 of 2020 Amit & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Rajnish Dubey Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. FIR challenged-stating false implication-against three brothers-FIR has to be looked prima facie for invoking writ jurisdiction-no case for interference. W.P. dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: 1.Rupan Deol Bajaj Vs K.P.S. Gill, (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059 2. Rajesh Bajaj Vs State of NCT of Delhi; (1999) 3 SCC 259 3.Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors; reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. 7 All. Amit & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 333 & Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary. J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State. 2. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the F.I.R. dated 6.10.2020 in Case Crime No.0409 of 2020 under Sections 147, 506 I.P.C. and 10(1) U.P. Regulation of Money - Lending Act 1976, Police Station - Badalpur District- Gautambudhnagar. (ii) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of F.I.R. dated 6.10.2020 in Case Crime No.0409 of 2020 under Section 147, 506 I.P.C. and 10(1) U.P. Regulation of Money - lending Act 1976, Police Station - Badalpur District- Gautambudhnagar. (iii) Issue any such other and further order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. The brief facts as culled out from the records and the petition are that the respondent No.3, Kuldeep Kumar lodged an First Information Report against the petitioners and criminal intimation. This complain was lodging on 6.10.2020. The police authorities registered the same as F.I.R. dated 6.10.2020 in Case Crime No.0409 of 2020 under Sections 147, 506 I.P.C. and 10(1) U.P. Regulation of Money - Lending Act 1976, Police Station - Badalpur District- Gautambudhnagar. The First Information Report dated 6.10.2020 is lodged against all the three brothers who were alleged to have been involved in money lending business. 4. It is stated that the petitioners have falsely implicated in the said F.I.R. after a malacious thought, according to learned counsel for petitioners, hence, not carried out the investigation and he is trying to harass the petitioners and it is submitted that the F.I.R. does not discloses any prima facie case. 5. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that there are serious disputed questions of fact and this Court should not interfere into the factual data as the investigation is going on and there are facts which can be said to be in the realm of disputed questions of fact. 6. The Apex Court in catena of decisions has cautioned, the High Courts show causing its jurisdiction way the F.I.R. prima facie for the complaint and the evidence which may be collected would show that offence has been made out. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court, further in the various precedents i.e. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill; reported in (1995) SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi; reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E Ltd. & Ors; reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, has made crystal clear that if a prima facie case is made out , theCourt should not quash the complaint. On the contrary, it was held that the Courts should not hesitate to quash the complaint if no prima facie case is made out. However, as a note of caution while considering such petitions, the Courts 334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES should be careful. Thus, there is no conundrum about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out, the F.I.R. or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed. 8. Should we quash the complaints where serious allegations of money laundering under the regulations of U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976? We have expressed our mind to the learned counsel that the petitioners may move for anticipatory bail before the competent Court. 9. The First Information Report prima facie has to be looked into for quashment for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that only with a view to arrest the petitioners and show that the complainant who has taken money may not have to repay this complaint is lodged. The petitioners are lending money whether they have the licence to lend or not is not on record and question requires to be investigated. 11. In that view of the matter, we do not think that any case is made out for interference by this Court. It cannot be said that they have been falsely implicated in the said first Information Report, they should thanks the police officials who have for a period of three months not cause they arrest as the complaint is filed in the month of October, 2020. 12. The petition being devoid of merits, does not require our issuance of certiorari of mandamus writ. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ---------- (2021)07ILR A334 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 19.07.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. FAFO No. 237 of 2014 Along with FAFO No. 238 of 2014 Along with FAFO No. 244 of 2014 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Smt. Neetu Soni & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: Sandeep Kumar Agrawal, Vishal Tahlani United India Insurance Company Ltd. Thru. Divisional Manager Vs Smt. Neetu Soni & ors. Insurance Claim - The Court finds that in absence of any original receipt of cancellation of insurance policy which ought to have been kept by the Insurance Company at its end in the usual course of business.The photocopy of the dispatch register simply bearing that a letter was sent on a particular date is inadmissible in evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the information stating that the insurance policy has been cancelled on 15.03.2011 due to dishonor of cheque on 14.03.2011, has been conveyed to the insured M/s Deep Oil Tanker, the relevant Transport Authorities and the traffic Authorities. (Para 41) Contributory Negligence - Merely because three persons were riding the motorcycle and they were not wearing helmets in itself will not give rise to any inference that this act contributed towards the accident. (Para 54) Appeals Rejected. (E-8)