Allahabad High Court
Prem Prakash Kothari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home & ... on 11 July, 2019
Author: Munishwar Nath Bhandari
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 9 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 18873 of 2019 Petitioner :- Prem Prakash Kothari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Singh Chauhan,Adarsh Pratap Singh,Rohit Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Ved Prakash Vaish,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
By this writ petition a challenge has been made to the First Information Report No.230 of 2019 registered for offence under Sections 381, 406 Indian Penal Code. The First Information Report was registered on 03.07.2019 with Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that their exist unexplained delay of 15 days in lodging First Information Report and otherwise it does not refer to the articles said to have been stolen. The First Information Report is totally unspecific even in reference to the date of alleged incident. The basic ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 381 Indian Penal Code is missing. The petitioner was a chartered accountant and did not involve in theft otherwise in the First Information Report, disclosure of the articles said to have been stolen would have been mentioned in reference to date of incident. The prayer is accordingly to quash the First Information Report in reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Avdhesh vs. State of U.P. and others, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C No.13583 of 2019 decided by the order dated 19.04.2019 has been given. Para 11 of the said judgment has been referred to show the discussion of the issue. To satisfy Section 381, it needs to prove that accused was employed in the capacity of clerk or servant and committed theft in respect of alleged property. The property should be in possession of the employer. He states that no evidence exist to prove any of the ingredients to certify offence under Section 381 Indian Penal Code and for that reason the interference was caused by this Court in the chargesheet in the case of Avdhesh (supra). The prayer is accordingly to quash the First Information Report.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
A challenge to the First Information Report has been made mainly on the ground of delay and for non-disclosure of the details of the articles said to have been stolen. The perusal of the First Information Report shows that theft could be noticed by the complainant when he saw footage of CCTV camera. He could see the activity of the petitioner for taking away the articles.
In view of the above, we are not satisfied about the first limb of argument about delay. It is not even in reference to the date of incident and the detail of articles said to have been stolen. It is settled law that First Information Report is not an encyclopedia of the event but is a summary narration of facts.
In view of the above, we are unable to accept first argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has given reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Avdhesh (supra). The perusal of the said judgment shows a petition after the chargesheet. It was filed after collection of evidence during the course of investigation. The material was available to the court to appreciate it in reference to the provision The stage aforesaid does not exist in the present case. The challenge is not to the chargesheet but to the First Information Report and that at the initial stage. The First Information Report does not require evidence before it is registered.
In view of the above, even the judgment of this Court in the case of Avdhesh (supra) is of no help to the petitioner.
The chargesheet or final report remain subject to investigation. Accordingly, thus even the second argument in reference to the judgment of Awadhesh (supra) cannot be accepted.
It is otherwise the fact that the First Information Report can be quashed on any of the ground laid down by the apex court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The case in hand does not fall in any of the category illustratively given by the apex court for quashing of the First Information Report.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any ground to quash the First Information Report. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(Ved Prakash Vaish, J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.) Order Date :- 11.7.2019 cks/- / Goswami