# M/S Brijwasi Sarraf v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1538
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-31
- **Case number:** J. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7850 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-brijwasi-sarraf-v-u-o-i-ors-51290
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law., C.S.C., Sudhir
Kumar, Vijay Kumar Dubey

Criminal
Law
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 102, 451 & 457 - Seizure
of Bank Account - Freezing of Account - Right
to Property - Alternative Remedy - Writ
Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution

The petitioner, M/s Brijwasi Sarraf, challenged
the freezing of its Axis Bank account (No.
407010200000347) by the Investigating Officer,
alleging non-compliance with Section 102(3)
Cr.P. , which mandates reporting seizures to
the jurisdictional Magistrate, and claimed that
the freezing deprived it of its right to property.
The account was frozen based on complaints
filed on the National Cyber Crime Reporting
Portal (NCCRP) on 17.08.2023 and 24.08.2023,
alleging that funds from fraudulent transactions
by
Gravity
Solutions,
linked
to
accused
Amarnath Awasthi, were transferred to the
petitioner's account via Jugal Kishore Jewellers.
The St. argued that Section 102(3) is directory,
not mandatory, as per Amit Singh Vs St. of U.P.,
and that the petitioner had an alternative
remedy under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P. to
seek release of the seized property. Held: The
2 All. M/S Brijwasi Sarraf Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1539
Supreme Court in St. of Maharashtra Vs Tapas
Neogy (1999) 7 SCC 685 clarified that a bank
account is "property" under Section 102 Cr.P. ,
and police can freeze it if linked to an offence,
as confirmed in Teesta Atul Setalvad Vs St. of
Gujarat. Freezing is a temporary investigative
measure, not a deprivation of property rights, per
Vinoshkumar Ramachandran Valluvar Vs St. of
Maharashtra (2011 SCC OnLine Bom 112). The
petitioner's failure to report the seizure under Section
102(3) does not render it illegal, as the provision is
directory. The petitioner could seek interim custody or
disposal of the seized property under Sections 451 or
457 Cr.P. before the jurisdictional Magistrate, an
effective alternative remedy. Thus, the writ petition
was not maintainable under Article 226 due to the
availability of statutory remedies. The petition was
disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue
remedies under the Cr.P.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

1538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the same Competent Authority cannot give
sanction for criminal prosecution under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, is not
applicable in the facts of the instant case.

(42) In so far as the relief clause as
framed in the writ petition is concerned,
regarding challenge to Sanction Order and
grounds taken for such challenge in the
pleadings on record, a Co-ordinate Division
Bench of this Court in Yash Kumar Verma
Vs. State of U.P. C.R.L.P. 2372 of 2023
decided on 14.07.2023 after considering the
law as settled by the Supreme Court and
considering the Division Bench judgment of
this Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar Singh
Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2020 AIR Online
447 has observed in Para-32 as follows:-

"This Court is of the considered opinion
that in view of the law settled by the Supreme
Court in the aforecited cases of Dinesh
Kumar versus Chairman, Airports Authority
of India and another, C.B.I. versus Ashok
Kumar Agarwal, C.B.I. versus Pramila
Virendra Kumar Agarwal, and Sukh lal Yadav
versus State of U.P. and others, till evidence
is led by the prosecution before the Trial
Court, the facts and circumstances leading to
the competent authority granting sanction for
prosecution cannot be appreciated to the
fullest. Even if for the sake of argument, it is
to be believed that necessary material was
not kept before the sanctioning authority for
it to apply its mind, then also the prosecution
would have to be given a chance to first lead
evidence to the effect that all relevant
material including material which may
favour the accused, was laid before the
sanctioning authority. To Appreciate such
evidence, the trial court is competent."

(43) We do not find any merit in this
challenge and consequently the writ petition
stands dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1538
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA,
J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I,
J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7850 of 2023

M/S Brijwasi Sarraf ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vinod Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law., C.S.C., Sudhir
Kumar, Vijay Kumar Dubey

Criminal
Law
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 102, 451 & 457 - Seizure
of Bank Account - Freezing of Account - Right
to Property - Alternative Remedy - Writ
Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution

The petitioner, M/s Brijwasi Sarraf, challenged
the freezing of its Axis Bank account (No.
407010200000347) by the Investigating Officer,
alleging non-compliance with Section 102(3)
Cr.P. , which mandates reporting seizures to
the jurisdictional Magistrate, and claimed that
the freezing deprived it of its right to property.
The account was frozen based on complaints
filed on the National Cyber Crime Reporting
Portal (NCCRP) on 17.08.2023 and 24.08.2023,
alleging that funds from fraudulent transactions
by
Gravity
Solutions,
linked
to
accused
Amarnath Awasthi, were transferred to the
petitioner's account via Jugal Kishore Jewellers.
The St. argued that Section 102(3) is directory,
not mandatory, as per Amit Singh Vs St. of U.P.,
and that the petitioner had an alternative
remedy under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P. to
seek release of the seized property. Held: The
2 All. M/S Brijwasi Sarraf Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1539
Supreme Court in St. of Maharashtra Vs Tapas
Neogy (1999) 7 SCC 685 clarified that a bank
account is "property" under Section 102 Cr.P. ,
and police can freeze it if linked to an offence,
as confirmed in Teesta Atul Setalvad Vs St. of
Gujarat. Freezing is a temporary investigative
measure, not a deprivation of property rights, per
Vinoshkumar Ramachandran Valluvar Vs St. of
Maharashtra (2011 SCC OnLine Bom 112). The
petitioner's failure to report the seizure under Section
102(3) does not render it illegal, as the provision is
directory. The petitioner could seek interim custody or
disposal of the seized property under Sections 451 or
457 Cr.P. before the jurisdictional Magistrate, an
effective alternative remedy. Thus, the writ petition
was not maintainable under Article 226 due to the
availability of statutory remedies. The petition was
disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue
remedies under the Cr.P.

Case Law Cited:

1. Amit Singh Vs St. of U.P. (Allahabad HC)

2. St. of Mah. Vs Tapas Neogy, (1999) 7 SCC 685

3. Teesta Atul Setalvad Vs St. of Guj.

4. Vinoshkumar Ramachandran Valluvar Vs St. of
Mah., 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 112

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,
J. & Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

(Oral)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for
the opposite party no.10, Learned A.G.A. for
the State Respondents and Sri Sudhir Kumar,
Advocate, who has appeared and filed his
vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.
11 in the Registry yesterday.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner with the following main
reliefs:-

(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari whereby order passed
by opposite party directing the bank to freeze
the current account 407010200000347; IFSC
Code IFSC-UTIB0000407 existed in Branch
Hawett Road, Lucknow in the Axis Bank Ltd. of
petitioner's firm be quashed and set aside.

(ii). Issue a Writ, Order or Direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
opposite parties no. 9 to de-freeze the current
account 407010200000347; IFSC Code IFSC-
UTIB0000407 existed in Branch Hawett Road,
Lucknow in the Axis Bank Ltd. of the
petitioner's firm and the petitioner may be
allowed to operate the account as earlier he
was able to operate.

(iii). Issue a Writ, Order or Direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding
opposite parties specifically opposite party no.
10 i.e. Branch Manager, Axis Bank Ltd., Branch
Hawett Road Shivaji Marg, 226001, Lucknow,
that he may not permit to the opposite parties
no. 5 to 9 to deduct any amount from the
current
account
the
current
account
407010200000347;
IFSC
Code
IFSC-
UTIB0000407 existed in Branch Hawett Road,
Lucknow in the Axis Bank Ltd. of the
petitioner's firm, in any manner, during
pendency of the present writ petition.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel the
petitioner that seizure made by the Investigating
Officer in these cases have not been reported to
the Magistrate having jurisdiction, therefore,
due to non-compliance of provisions
contained under Section 102 (3) of Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to
as 'Cr.P.C.) such seizure is not sustainable
in the eye of law. His further submission is
that freezing of account of the petitioner
amounts to deprivation of his right to
property as the money in his account
belongs to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Additional
Government Advocate argued that the
question as to whether Section 102 (3)
1540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. is mandatory or directory, is no
more res integra, has already been decided
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at
Allahabad in Amit Singh v. State of U.P.1
that Section 102 (3) Cr.P.C. is not
mandatory but it is directory. It was also
observed that non-reporting of the seizure
forthwith, as provided under Section 102
(3) Cr.P.C., shall not ipso facto render the
seizure illegal particularly as no period is
specified and it's consequences have not
been provided. He has also submitted that
the petitioner has a statutory remedy as
provided under Sections 451 to 457 Cr.P.C.
against any seizure made under Section 102
Cr.P.C. Therefore, he prays that the instant
writ petition is also liable to be dismissed.

5. An affidavit of service filed today
by Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner, is taken on record.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has
produced
before
this
Court
written
instructions sent by the Sub-Inspector of
Police, Cyber Crime Cell Police, Police
Station- Amroli, District- Surat City,
Gujarat and also from Cyber Police Station,
Pune, Maharashtra.

7. Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for
the State has stated on the basis of said
instructions that one Amarnath Awasthi was
running a company by the name of Gravity
Solutions which had falsely promised the
investors of earning 20 to 30 percent profit
on invested amount. The investigation has
revealed
that
Rs.
6,01,000/-
were
transferred online from Yes Bank Account
No. 001885800006111 of the accused
Amarnath Awasthi to HDFC Bank Account
No. 50200026791298 of Messers Jugal
Kishore, The Jewellers, Eldeco Green,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The investigation
has further revealed that out of the amount
of fraudulently transferred money in the
Bank Account of Jugal Kishore in HDFC
Bank Account, an amount of Rs.6,21,750/-
was transferred online to Axis Bank
Account No. 407010200000347 of the
accused Brijwasi Saraf, Jhandewala Park,
Aminabad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh on
15.07.2023.

8. Mr. Parag Patel, the complainant in
the said crime, had filed a complaint online
on cybercrime.gov.in on National Cyber
Crime
Register
Portal
(NCCRP)
on
24.08.2023. The bank account of the
petitioner, Brijwasi Saraf has been debit
frozen
through
NCCRP
Portal.
The
investigation of the crime through money
trail has revealed that money received in
the said Axis Bank of the petitioner is from
the complainant's Bank Account.

9. Sri S.P. Singh has also produced
before this Court instructions sent by
Senior
Police
Superintendent,
Police
Station Pune City, Shivaji Nagar, Pune,
Maharashtra, wherein a mention has been
made of online complaint made on
24.08.2023 by one Parag Arun Patil under
Sections 419/420/34 I.P.C. read with
Section 66D of the Information Technology
Act.
In
the
said
complaint
while
mentioning several named accused mention
has also been made of one company by the
name of Gravity Solutions with Yes Bank
Account
No.
001885800006111
and
account holders and user of Canara Bank
Account No.110115106665. The amount
cheated from the complainant as mentioned
in the said complaint is 31 lakhs. The
complainant saw an advertisement on
Facebook issued by the Managers of
Gravity Solutions Company saying that
company handles a trading pool account
and they can give 50% profit on the money
invested by anyone. Similarly, Managers of
2 All. M/S Brijwasi Sarraf Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1541
one Lovotrade company also said that their
company trades in Bullion and Foregin
Currencies and they can give 20% return on
the amount invested in their company. The
complainant being lured was duped online
and he transferred a total amount of Rs.31
lakhs to a different Bank Accounts. The
Pune Police on investigation has found that
on 12.05.2023 the complainant transferred
Rs. 9 lakhs to the Account of accused Amar
Nath Awasthi R/o Vibhuti Khand Gomti
Nagar Lucknow in his Yes Bank Account
No. 001885800006111 and Rs.6 lakhs was
transferred to the Yes Bank Account of the
company Gravity Solutions on 04.07.2023.
Further investigation revealed that the
Accused Amar Nath Awasthi took a total
amount of Rs.15 lakhs into the two
accounts maintained in his Bank and then
transferred it to different bank Account.
Rs.6,01,000 was transferred online from
Bank Account of Amar Nath Awasthi to
HDFC Bank Account of M/s Jugal Kishore
Jewellers, Eldeco Green, Gomti Nagar. Jugal
Kishore Jewellers transferred Rs.6,21,750/-
from their HDFC Bank account to Axis Bank
Account of the petitioner Brijwasi Sarraf
Aminabad, Lucknow, on 15.07.2023.

On the basis of online complaint made
on
cybercrime.gov.in/nationalcybercrimeregistra
tionportal on 24.08.2023, the Bank Account
of the petitioner has been debit frozen. Not
only the Pune Police, Cybercrime Cell, has
requested for debit freeze of the petitioner's
account, but a request has also been made by
other three Investigating Agencies as the
money trail has revealed that the money
received in the petitioner's Bank Account in
Axis Bank is from the complainant's Bank
Account.

10. The Police Personnel, namely, Mr.
M. N. Katuriya, Sub-Inspector of Police,
Salabatpura and Mr. G. D. Gadhavi, SubInspector of Police, Amroli, Surat City,
Gujarat have also given written instructions
which relate to one complainant by the name
of Dharmesh Bhai Gopal Bhai Vashi, who
had made a complaint on 17.08.2023
regarding Gravity Solutions which had duped
the complainant and the other investors.
Some of the accused have also been
apprehended and now lodged in Sabarmati
Central Jail since 24.08.2023. The exact
modus operandi of the accused has been
given in detail in the said instructions.
Initially, the small amounts were transferred
every month in the accounts of the investors
to make them believe that they will be getting
better returns on the money that they had
invested in Gravity Solutions, later on such
money stopped coming and on suspicion of
fraud, the complainant lodged a complaint
with the Cyber Crime Cell which was
uploaded on the NCCRP Portal, which
resulted in the money trail being traced to the
account of the petitioner, Brijwasi Saraf
maintained in Axis Bank.

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat2
in paragraph nos.17 & 18 has held as under:-

"17. The sweep and applicability
of Section 102 of the Code is no more res
integra. That question has been directly
considered and answered in State of
Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy [State of
Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, (1999) 7
SCC 685 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1352] . The
Court examined the question whether the
police officer investigating any offence
can issue prohibitory orders in respect of
bank accounts in exercise of power under
Section 102 of the Code. The High Court,
in that case, after analysing the provisions
of Section 102 of the Code had opined that
bank account of the accused or of any
1542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
relation of the accused cannot be held to
be "property" within the meaning of
Section 102 of the Code. Therefore, the
investigating officer will have no power to
seize bank accounts or to issue any
prohibitory
order
prohibiting
the
operation of the bank account. This Court
noted that there were conflicting decisions
of different High Courts on this aspect
and as the question was seminal, it chose
to answer the same. In para 6, this Court
noted thus : (SCC p. 691)

"6. A plain reading of subsection (1) of Section 102 indicates that
the police officer has the power to seize
any property which may be found under
circumstances creating suspicion of the
commission
of
any
offence.
The
legislature having used the expression
"any property" and "any offence" have
made the applicability of the provisions
wide enough to cover offences created
under any Act. But the two preconditions
for applicability of Section 102(1) are that
it must be "property" and secondly, in
respect of the said property there must
have been suspicion of commission of any
offence. In this view of the matter the two
further
questions
that
arise
for
consideration are whether the bank
account of an accused or of his relation
can be said to be "property" within the
meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 102
CrPC
and
secondly,
whether
circumstances exist, creating suspicion of
commission of any offence in relation to
the same."

18. After analysing the decisions of
different High Courts, this Court in para
12, expounded the legal position thus :
(SCC pp. 694-95)

"12.
Having
considered
the
divergent views taken by different High Courts
with regard to the power of seizure under
Section 102 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, and whether the bank account can
be held to be "property" within the meaning of
the said Section 102(1), we see no justification
to give any narrow interpretation to the
provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. It
is well known that corruption in public offices
has become so rampant that it has become
difficult to cope up with the same. Then again
the time consumed by the courts in concluding
the trials is another factor which should be
borne in mind in interpreting the provisions of
Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code
and the underlying object engrafted therein,
inasmuch as if there can be no order of
seizure of the bank account of the accused
then the entire money deposited in a bank
which is ultimately held in the trial to be the
outcome of the illegal gratification, could be
withdrawn by the accused and the courts
would be powerless to get the said money
which has any direct link with the commission
of the offence committed by the accused as a
public officer. We are, therefore, persuaded to
take the view that the bank account of the
accused or any of his relations is "property"
within the meaning of Section 102 of the
Criminal Procedure Code and a police officer
in course of investigation can seize or prohibit
the operation of the said account if such assets
have direct links with the commission of the
offence for which the police officer is
investigating into. ... In the aforesaid
premises, we have no hesitation to come to the
conclusion that the High Court of Bombay
[Chandrashekar Ramprakash Agarwal v.
State of Maharashtra, 1997 SCC OnLine Bom
632] committed error in holding that the police
officer could not have seized the bank
account or could not have issued any
direction to the bank officer, prohibiting
the account of the accused from being
operated upon."

After this decision, there is no room
to countenance the challenge to the action
of seizure of bank account of any person
2 All. M/S Brijwasi Sarraf Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1543
which may be found under circumstances
creating suspicion of the commission of
any offence."

(Emphasis supplied by us)

12. The action of seizing a movable
property, which includes freezing of the
Bank account, is taken under Section 102
of the Cr.P.C. which is reproduced
hereinunder:-

"102. Power of police officer to
seize certain property.- (1) Any Police
Officer may seize any property which may
be alleged or suspected to have been
stolen, or which may be found under
circumstances which create suspicion of the
commission of any offence.

(2)
Such
police
officer,
if
subordinate to the officer in charge of a
Police Station, shall forthwith report the
seizure to that officer.

(3) Every Police Officer acting
under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report
the seizure to the Magistrate having
jurisdiction and where the property seized
is such that it cannot be conveniently
transported to the Court or where there is
difficulty
in
securing
proper
accommodation for the custody of such
property, or where the continued retention
of the property in police custody may not be
considered necessary for the purpose of
investigation, he may give custody thereof
to any person on his executing a bond
undertaking to produce the property before
the Court as and when required and to give
effect to the further orders of the Court as
to the disposal of the same:

Provided that where the property
seized under sub-section (1) is subject to
speedy and natural decay and if the person
entitled to the possession of such property
is unknown or absent and the value of such
property is less than five hundred rupees, it
may forthwith be sold by auction under the
orders of the Superintendent of Police and
the provisions of Sections 457, and 458,
shall, as nearly as may be practicable,
apply to the net proceeds of such sale."

13. In Vinoshkumar Ramachandran
Valluvar v. State of Maharashtra3 it was
observed as under:-

"18. It is, therefore, clear that
like any other property a bank account is
freezable. Freezing the account is an act
in investigation. Like any other act, it
commands
and
behoves
secrecy
to
preserve the evidence. It does not deprive
any person of his liberty or his property. It
is necessarily temporary i.e. till the merit
of the case is decided. It clothes the
Investigating Officers with the power to
preserve a property suspected to have been
used in the commission of the offence in
any manner. The property, therefore,
requires
to
be
protected
from
dissemination, depletion or destruction by
any mode. Consequently, under the guise
of being given information about the said
action, no Accused, not even a third party,
can overreach the law under the umbrella
of a sublime provision meant to protect the
innocent and preserve his property. It
would indeed be absurd to suggest that a
person must be told that his Bank
account, which is suspected of having
been used in the commission of an offence
by himself or even by another, is being
frozen to allow him to have it closed or to
have
its
proceeds
withdrawn
or
transferred upon such notice."

(Emphasis supplied by us)

14. We find that for freezing the
account invoking provision as contained
under Section 102 Cr.P.C. cannot, by any
stretch of imagination, be held to be
1544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deprivation of right of property available to
the petitioner. Such argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner appears to be
misconceived.

15. It is apposite to refer Section 451 of
Cr.P.C. which enables the trial Court to grant
interim custody pending trial. Similarly, Section
457 also vests power in the Magistrate to deal
with the seized property as deemed proper and
necessary. An accused whose property is seized
by police officer can file application for grant of
interim custody. This is an effective and
efficacious remedy. Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for
ready reference is reproduced here-in-under:-

"457. Procedure by police upon seizure of
property.

(1) Whenever the seizure of property by
any police officer is reported to a Magistrate
under the provisions of this Code, and such
property is not produced before a Criminal
Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate
may make such order as he thinks fit respecting
the disposal of such property or the delivery of
such property to the person entitled to the
possession thereof, or if such person cannot be
ascertained, respecting the custody and
production of such property.

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the
Magistrate may order the property to be
delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as
the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is
unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and
shall, in such case, issue a proclamation
specifying the articles of which such property
consists, and requiring any person who may
have a claim thereto, to appear before him and
establish his claim within six months from the
date of such proclamation."

(Emphasis supplied by us)

16. Thus, on the basis of what has been
discussed above, the petitioner ought to have
approached the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking
appropriate remedy in respect of the property
seized and therefore, when an alternative remedy
is available, in our considered opinion the present
writ petition is not maintainable.

17. In view of the above, the petition lacks
merit, which is accordingly, finally disposed of,
leaving it open to the petitioner to avail
appropriate remedy as may be available to him in
accordance with law.

8. Interim order, if any, stands
discharged.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1544
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17595 of 2023

Ajay Rai ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Rajesh Kumar Madhesia(S.L.O.)

Criminal Law - Uttar Pradesh Co-operative
Societies Act, 1965 - Sections 16, 17,
65(2), 68, 103 & 105 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154 & 155 -
First Information Report (F.I.R.) - Quashing of
F.I.R.
-
Article
226
-
Embezzlement
-
Cognizable Offence

The petitioner, Ajay Rai, challenged the F.I.R.
registered as Case Crime No. 0182 of 2023
under Section 409 IPC at P.S. Dullahpur,
Ghazipur, alleging misappropriation of Rs.
16,17,833 as the Officiating Secretary of Sikhadi
Samiti. The F.I.R. followed an inquiry under