9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 882 - HC - Indian LawsRecovery of Loan - petitioner was extended facility of loan on finance of a vehicle by the informant, who is a Collection Manager - It is submitted that if there are any dues against the loan extended in favour of petitioner, then the finance company is having cheques in their possession, which if are dishonored, then the informant has a remedy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT - FIR has been lodged for cheating and criminal misappropriation of the hypothecated property. Prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R or staying the arrest of the petitioner. The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. 2006 (7) TMI 723 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. 1999 (9) TMI 997 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case - From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R or staying the arrest of the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of FIR under Sections 420, 406 IPC for alleged misappropriation of hypothecated property against a loan extended for a vehicle. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR dated 24.08.2020 registered under Sections 420, 406 IPC, alleging misappropriation of a hypothecated vehicle against a loan extended by the informant, a Collection Manager of a finance company. The petitioner argued that if there were any dues, the finance company could pursue remedies under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as they possessed post-dated cheques. The State, represented by the AGA, contended that the FIR was not about loan recovery but accused the petitioner of cheating and criminal misappropriation of the hypothecated property. The court, after hearing both sides, agreed with the State's submission, finding prima facie evidence of a cognizable offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the court emphasized that no grounds existed for quashing the FIR or staying the petitioner's arrest. In a reference to a Supreme Court ruling, the court highlighted the importance of considering related complaints together to avoid contradictory judgments. However, in the present case, the petitioner was not facing simultaneous prosecution under both the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Indian Penal Code. The court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that interference with investigation or staying arrest is not warranted unless a cognizable offence is not evident from the FIR's allegations or statutory restrictions apply to the police's investigative powers. Upon reviewing the FIR, the court reiterated that prima facie evidence of a cognizable offence existed, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition seeking the FIR's quashing. Therefore, the court's decision was based on the finding that the FIR alleged cheating and criminal misappropriation of the hypothecated property, constituting a cognizable offence under the law. The petitioner's arguments regarding loan recovery mechanisms under the Negotiable Instruments Act were considered but did not warrant quashing the FIR. The court's ruling aligned with legal precedents and established principles regarding interference with investigations and arrest stays, ultimately dismissing the petition seeking relief.
|
