Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2023 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1433 - HC - Indian LawsProperty being pledged in a loan and then being sold after being undervalued - Civil dispute of not - difference of opinion between the members of the Division Bench and the matter has been referred under Chapter VIII Rule 3 of the Rules of the Court but in the referring order the point of difference is not noted - HELD THAT - Looking to the nature of the incident being related to financial institutions of money lenders who were pursuing recovery proceedings of their enforceable debts and the proceedings thereof satisfy the same, it is a fit case for grant of interim protection to the petitioners. The argument of learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioners will not arrested and the proceedings, if any, will be taken up as per the directions of the Apex Court in the judgment in NIRAJ TYAGI AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS 2023 (7) TMI 1368 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT relied by him is concerned, the interim order as granted is not limited to merely protecting the arrest of the petitioners but is on other counts too. Since this Court has come to a conclusion that it is a fit case for grant of interim protection, the same is granted. The present case is a fit case for grant of interim protection in terms of the order passed by another Division Bench of this Court in Niraj Tyagi - List this petition before the Division Bench on the date fixed therein for appropriate orders.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the First Information Report (FIR). 2. Interim protection from arrest and coercive steps. 3. Stay on investigation and consequential actions. 4. Costs of the writ petition. Summary: 1. Quashing of the First Information Report (FIR): The petitioners sought to quash the FIR dated 22.07.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 611 of 2023 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908, at Police Station Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. The FIR was filed by the informant alleging illegal sale and undervaluation of property, resulting in financial loss to the state. The petitioners argued that the FIR was part of a civil dispute related to loan transactions and property auctions, and multiple FIRs were being filed for the same loan transaction involving different properties. 2. Interim Protection from Arrest and Coercive Steps: The petitioners requested interim protection from arrest and any coercive steps until the next date of listing. One judge granted interim protection based on the Supreme Court's interim protection in a similar case, while the other judge denied it, stating that arrest was not essential under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and that the state should be given time to respond. 3. Stay on Investigation and Consequential Actions: The petitioners sought a stay on all investigations and consequential actions arising from the FIR. The judge who granted interim protection extended it to the petitioners, citing the Supreme Court's order and a similar interim order by the High Court in another case. The other judge did not find a prima facie case for interim protection without responses from the informant and the state. 4. Costs of the Writ Petition: The petitioners requested the court to award the costs of the writ petition. Separate Judgments: The two judges delivered separate judgments. One judge granted interim protection, citing the Supreme Court's interim protection in a similar case and a High Court order. The other judge denied interim protection, emphasizing the need for state response and the non-essential nature of arrest under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The matter was referred to the Chief Justice for nomination of a bench to resolve the difference of opinion.
|