# Mohit Kumar Goyal v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 247 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-07-16 - **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 1625 of 2021 - **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Shekhar Kumar Yadav - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohit-kumar-goyal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47205 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote A.G.A., Sri Prem Shankar Kushwaha Petitioner challenged total 11 FIRsalleged representative of the company mmet the informant and placed purchased orders -but payment never materialised-bare perusal of the FIR - specific allegations against the Petitioner-ingredients of cognizable offences are clearly disclosed- FIR cannot be quashed. W.P. dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: 1.T.T. Antony Vs St. of Kerala & Ors., 2001 (2) SCC 1048 ## Text 8 All. Mohit Kumar Goyal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 247 above, the petitioner can take any other ground for challenge to the order in the trial. 12.The writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. ---------- (2021)08ILR A247 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 1625 of 2021 Mohit Kumar Goyal ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.P. Srivastava, Sri Prashant Vyas, Sri Abhishek Tandon, Sri Renu Singh Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A., Sri Prem Shankar Kushwaha Petitioner challenged total 11 FIRsalleged representative of the company mmet the informant and placed purchased orders -but payment never materialised-bare perusal of the FIR - specific allegations against the Petitioner-ingredients of cognizable offences are clearly disclosed- FIR cannot be quashed. W.P. dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: 1.T.T. Antony Vs St. of Kerala & Ors., 2001 (2) SCC 1048 2. Jagjit Singh Vs St. of Har.& ors., 2004 (13) SCC 294, 3. Babubhai Vs St. of Guj. & ors., 2010 SCC (12) 254, 4. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs C.B.I. & anr., 2013 SCC (6) 348, 5. Amish Devgan Vs U.O.I. & ors., Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 160 of 2020, decided on 7 December, 2020. (Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. & Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.) 1. Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Prashant Vyas and Shri Abhishek Tandon, Advocates for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Sole petitioner seeks quashing of 11 FIRs detailed below:- Case Crime No. 0650 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Noida Sector-58, District- Gautam Budh Nagar (dated 24.12.2020), Case Crime No. 0021 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420 & 504, 120-B & 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Sector-58 Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar (dated 19.01.2021), Case Crime No. 0022 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Sector-58 Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar (dated 19.01.2021), Case Crime No. 0023 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Sector-58 Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar (dated 20.01.2021), Case Crime No. 0024 of 2021, under Sections 323, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 120-B & 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Noida Sector-58 Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar (dated 20.01.2021), Case Crime No. 0025 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 120-B, 34 & 506 248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES I.P.C., Police Station- Sector-58 Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar (dated 20.01.2021), Case Crime No. 0026 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Sector-58 Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar (dated 20.01.2021), Case Crime No. 0027 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Sector-58 Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar (dated 20.01.2021), Case Crime No. 0030 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, Police Station- Sector-58 Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar (dated 22.01.2021), Case Crime No. 228 of 2020, under Sections 323, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 120-B & 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Noida Sector-58, District- Gautam Budh Nagar (dated 27.05.2020), Case Crime No. 0450 of 2020, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C., Police Station- Phase-III, District- Gautam Budh Nagar (dated 07.07.2020). 3. The second prayer made in the writ petition is that the petitioner be released from unlawful detention with regard to the 11 FIRs noted above. 4. The allegations in the afore-noted 11 FIRs are similar. The first informants therein have complained that representatives of a company namely, M/s Dubai Dry Fruits and Spices Hub met the first informants and placed purchased orders for supply of various edibles. Payments were not made, despite the items having been supplied. 5. On payments being pressed for, the first informants are alleged to have been intimidated and the actual payments never materialised. The office of the company has been locked. It is also the allegation in the FIRs that false companies were created and using the some modus operandi, a huge amount of money has been misappropriated. The entire exercise is on the planning of several persons including the petitioner. 6. It has been submitted by Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner is Director of one M/s Family of Dry Fruits India Private Limited, a duly incorporated company having its office at U-25/A, DLF Phase-3, Near Pink Town, House Market, Sector-24, Gurugram (Haryana), which is engaged in the business of buying essential commodities including rice, pulses, dry fruits, makhana etc. 7. He has submitted that two companies named in the FIR are M/s Dubai Dry Fruits and Spices and M/s Ayurvedic Commodities Company. The petitioner has no connection with the afore-noted two companies and that he has wrongly and illegally been roped in only with a view to harass him. 8. In the writ petition, it has also been reiterated time and again that the petitioner had no business dealings with any of the first informants and is not even aware of their identity. It is also alleged that no offence has been committed by the petitioner. He is not a beneficiary of the transactions complained of in the FIR and that the impugned FIRs do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioner. 9. Apart from the above, the main contention of Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate is that in respect of the same set of facts separate and repeated FIRs cannot be lodged. Since 11 FIRs containing the same allegations have been lodged against the petitioner, the same are 8 All. Mohit Kumar Goyal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 249 sheer abuse of the process of the court and, therefore, the same deserve to be quashed. 10. In support of his contention, he has placed and has taken the court through various paragraphs of the following judgments:- 1. T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., 2001 (2) SCC 1048, specially paragraph 27, 2. Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 2004 (13) SCC 294, specially paragraph 16 to 19, 3. Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2010 SCC (12) 254, specially paragraphs 15, 16, 21, 23, 24 & 25, 4. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. CBI & Anr., 2013 SCC (6) 348, specially paragraph 36. 5. The judgments in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 160 of 2020, Amish Devgan Vs. Union of India And Others decided on 7 December, 2020. 11. It has been reiterated that a second or repeated first information reports cannot be lodged regarding the same occurrence. 12. Learned AGA on the other hand submitted that each of the impugned FIR's pertains to a different transaction and is a separate case. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner to the contrary is factually incorrect, although he does not dispute the legal position laid down in T.T. Antony (supra). 13. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the partied and perused the record. 14. Insofar as the submission that the petitioner is not named in several of the impugned FIRs, the same does not improve his inasmuch as a person not named in an FIR, cannot be said to be aggrieved, thereby, and, therefore, cannot challenge it. 15. Insofar as the FIRs, wherein the petitioner is admittedly named are concerned, a bare perusal, thereof, shows that there are specific allegations against the petitioner also. The averments in the petition that the petitioner has no nexus or connection with the companies namely M/s Dubai Dry Fruits and Spices and M/s Ayurvedic Commodities Company, is the petitioner defence, as is the allegation that the petitioner had no inkling or knowledge of the alleged business transactions between the representatives/officials of the aforesaid Companies and the first informants. The afore-noted allegations are something to be examined during investigation. The same are factual issues, which cannot be decided by the writ court. 16. It would be relevant to note that from the allegations in the impugned FIRs, which are open to challenge by the petitioner, the ingredients of cognizable offences are clearly disclosed. The FIR therefore, cannot be quashed. 17. The only point which requires for consideration now is the submission of Shri V.P. Srivastava that numerous FIRs have been lodged pertaining to the same set of facts and, therefore, the lodging of separate FIR is malicious and is abuse of the process of the court and hit by the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in T.T. Antony (supra) as also the other judgments cited by him. 250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 18. The judgments cited on behalf of petitioner basically flow and follow the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony (supra), wherein it has been observed as follows:- "From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a Police Station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of the Cr.P.C." 19. In the context of the arguments, we have carefully examined the allegations in the impugned FIRs. These FIRs have been lodged by separate persons making similar allegations of cheating fraud, criminal intimidation etc. against the accused, therein. However, it cannot be held that all the FIRs pertained to or arise out of one and the same transaction. The transactions may, at best, be similar or that cheating criminal intimidation etc. were resorted to but each FIR pertains to a separate set of facts and separate and distinct transactions. 20. Under the circumstances, therefore, we have unable to agree that the impugned FIRs pertain to the same incident. The incidents can at best said to be similar but the facts alleged in the impugned FIRs do not flow from a single transaction or a single incident. 21. For this reason, the submission made by Shri V.P. Srivastava cannot be accepted and, therefore, the impugned orders cannot be quashed on the submissions made. 22. Although, not specifically argued, however it has also been averred in the writ petition that the facts alleged in the impugned FIRs are basically commercial transactions, which give rise to civil liabilities. Therefore, the impugned FIRs are malicious and abuse of the process of the court. 23. This case on the petitioners may or may not have been substance. However, this is an aspect which the writ court while dealing with a writ petition, seeking quashing of the FIR, is not required to enter into. The writ court is only required to examine as to whether the allegation in the FIRs, which are under challenge, disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. Once the allegations disclose or constitute a cognizable offence, the writ court has no occasion to interfere. 24. In view of the above, and since the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner have been repelled, herein above, the writ petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed. ---------- 8 All. Iserveu Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 251 (2021)08ILR A251 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BACHCHOO LAL, J. THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J. Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4691 of 2021 Iserveu Technologies Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ujjwal Satsangi Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A., Sri Satish Chaturvedi Jurisdiction of Writ Court is quite limited for quashing the F.I.R. -it cannot marshal and record finding on the questions of fact-it is in domain of the investigating officer-Court not inclined to quash the F.I.R. W.P. dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited: 1. St.of Har. Vs 2 Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC 604 2. Sta.of Telangana Vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani & ors.; (2017)2 SCC 779, 3. Criminal Appeal No.742 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.5598 of 2020 (Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs St. of Mah. & ors.) (Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.) 1. Heard Sri Ujjawal Satsangi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 through video conferencing, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief : "(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the record and quashing the impugned case crime/FIR No. 0009/2020 dated 07.01.2020, under Section 66D of IT (Amendment) Act, 2008, P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District- Kanpur Nagar. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest the management or employees of the petitioner company in pursuance of the impugned case crime/FIR No. 0009/2020 dated 07.01.2020, under Section 66D of IT (Amendment) Act, 2008, P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to seize the Bank Account of the petitioner i.e. A/c No. 36190836357 at State Bank of India, Branch KIIT Square, Bhubaneshwar. (iv) To issue any other writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (v) To award the costs in favour of the petitioner." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's company is a Financial Technology Startup, recognized under the Companies Act, 2013, Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade. The work of the company is to promoting digital financial transaction and works in relation with nationalized and private sector banks to provide mobile banking penetration in the rural area of the country. Evidently, the