2020 (1) TMI 1437 - HC - Indian Laws

Crime - sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations or not - Sections 417, 419 and 420 of IPC - HELD THAT - Prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioner, therefore, there are no cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused. It is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that he shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of FIR dated 12.10.2019 under Sections 417, 419, and 420 IPC.
2. Allegations of false and concocted charges leading to harassment.
3. Prima facie cognizable offenses against the petitioner.
4. Direction regarding the arrest of the petitioner until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought the quashing of the FIR dated 12.10.2019, alleging false and concocted charges under Sections 417, 419, and 420 IPC, with the intention of harassing him. The petitioner's counsel argued that no evidence supported the allegations, warranting the quashing of the FIR. Conversely, the A.G.A. contended that the allegations could not be dismissed at this stage, allowing the petitioner a chance to refute them. The court, after examining the FIR, found prima facie cognizable offenses against the petitioner, declining to quash the FIR.

2. The petitioner's counsel emphasized the baseless nature of the allegations in the FIR, asserting harassment as the motive behind them. However, the court's analysis focused on the presence of prima facie cognizable offenses, leading to the refusal to quash the FIR. The court's decision was based on the legal assessment of the FIR contents rather than the petitioner's claim of false charges and harassment.

3. Despite the refusal to quash the FIR, the court acknowledged the circumstances and the petitioner's submissions. Consequently, the court directed that the petitioner should not be arrested in the case until the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted. This direction aimed to ensure the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation and his availability when required, balancing the interests of justice and the petitioner's rights.

4. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petition with the direction regarding the petitioner's arrest, highlighting the court's consideration of the legal aspects, the petitioner's submissions, and the need for cooperation in the investigation. The court's decision reflected a nuanced approach, balancing the interests of justice and the petitioner's rights in the ongoing legal proceedings.