ISHTIYAQ Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2003-5-66
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 14,2003

ISHTIYAQ Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)M. C. Jain, J. Petitioner No. 1 is a Sub-Inspector of Police and petitioner No. 2 claims to be a businessman. They have prayed for quashing of the First Information Report dated 5-1-2003 registered at P. S. Kotwali Civil Lines, Allahabad as Crime No. 10 of 2003 under Sections 342/394/323/506/408 I. P. C. and/or for stay of their arrest in the said crime as also for transferring the investigation to C. B. C. I. D. or to P. S. C. R. P. , Lucknow.
(2.)WE have heard Sri S. U. Khan, learned counsel for petitioners and learned A. G. A. Counter-affidavit from the side of the State and rejoinder affidavit from the side of the petitioners have also been exchanged. The F. I. R. in question - Annexure 1 to the writ petition has been perused by us.
The F. I. R. in question has been lodged against the petitioners by respondent No. 3 Raj Kumar who is the Director of M/s. Raj Forex Pvt. Ltd. , with its registered office at E-1/60, Sector-7 Rohini, New Delhi. The said company is engaged in the business of currency exchange under a valid licence issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The facts are that on 23rd December, 2002 Ashok Kumar - an employee of respondent No. 3 had boarded Amrapali Train from Delhi for Gorakhpur with 33,500 American Dollars valued at Rs. 15,72,000/-in Indian currency. He was detrained by the petitioners at Lucknow railway station on the pretext that he was carrying illicit currency. He was forcibly made to be seated in a Tata Sumo vehicle and brought by them to Allahabad. He was confined in a house at Allahabad and the said 33,500 U. S. Dollars were robbed from him after giving beating. He was also made to sign and thumb mark certain blank papers. Ultimately, a ticket from Allahabad to Delhi was purchased for him by the petitioners and he was made to board the train. He was also threatened of his life and warned not to disclose the incident to anybody. On reaching Delhi, he disclosed the incident to his employer who sent him back to Allahabad with certain persons. Here he (the employee Ashok Kumar) identified the premises in which he had been confined and robbed of the currency. The petitioners were found. Petitioner No. 1 (Sub-Inspector of Police) offered threats to respondent No. 3 also on phone from Allahabad that he would be arrested and implicated in false cases. Respondent No. 3, however, insisted that he would lodge an F. I. R. The petitioners then offered to strike a compromise, but to no effect. He then ultimately lodged the F. I. R.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 was actually posted at Rae Bareli and was on duty and as such there was no occasion for his participating in the said crime. The petitioner No. 2 is a businessman belonging to a reputed family. Ashok Kumar -the servant of Respondent No. 3 himself grabbed the money and cheated his master. The F. I. R. is delayed also besides being false.

(3.)IT is noted from the counter-affidavit filed by Vijay Kumar Mishra - Investigating Officer of the case that evidence has come to be collected during investigation against the petitioners. In his statement made to the Investigating Officer, Respondent No. 3 has supported the version given by him in the F. I. R. The petitioners have come to figure in the statement of Ashok Kumar (servant of Respondent No. 3) who was carrying the currency and was allegedly robbed of the same by the petitioners in the manner stated above, though he is also a co-accused. Not only this, on 7-1-2003 while the Investigating Officer was in search of the petitioners, he found some blank papers with thumb impressions of Ashok Kumar from the pocket of the coat belonging to petitioner No. 1 from his room in the presence of the witnesses. He has also recorded the statement of Durga Prasad, the driver of the vehicle Tata Sumo No. M. H. 04/aa-2821 on 23rd January, 2003 who has given the details about the incident. The complicity of the petitioners in this serious crime is, prima facie, apparent from the evidence collected during the course of investigation. The petitioners are involved in a crime of very serious nature. So far as petitioner No. 1 (Police Sub-Inspector) is concerned, the allegations are as if the fence has started eating the crop, the protector of law turning to be law-breaker and desperado. There is no ground either to quash the F. I. R. or to stay the arrest of the petitioners in this serious crime. The petitioners are named in the F. I. R. Neither the informant-Respondent No. 3 nor his servant Ashok Kumar from whom the currency was allegedly robbed, is prima facie shown to have any enmity with any of them. The informant could not dare to falsely implicate the petitioners, one of whom is a Police Sub-Inspector.
So-called delay in the lodging of the F. I. R. would be germane to be explained at the trial. It may be stated here as passing reference that there was nothing unusual if Respondent No. 3 first concentrated to recover his money, if possible, and lodged the F. I. R. when his efforts did not yield any fruitful result.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.