The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the F. I. R. in crime o. 456/96 under Sections 420/467/ 468/471 and 120-B of the I. P. C. relating to P. S. Kaiserbagh, Lucknow.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has not committed any offence as mentioned in the F. I. R. A perusal of the F. I. R. will go to show that during the course of investiga tion of crime No. 418/96 under Section 223/224/120-R of I. P. C, it has come in the knowledge that constable No. 2335 Videsh Kumar, who was working in the lock up at Collectorate, Lucknow colluded with under trial Surajpal Yadav and the petitioner Lallu Yadav and in order to achieve the criminal intention they got prepared fake requisitions for production of the petitioner in the Court of C. J. M. , Lucknow on 5-10-96, 14-10-996, 15-10-96, 16-10-96, 19-10-96, 23-10-96, 30-10-96 and 31-10-96 when no such dates were feed in the case. In this way, they conspired to achieve unlawful gain and have thus committed the offences under the sections mentioned above.

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the State, in which it has been men tioned that the lock-up Moharrir in col lusion with these undertrial has made fake requisitions for producing these under-trials in the Court when their presence was not required in the Court. If the petitioner had not asked the concerned constable then these requisitions would not have been made and the petitioner would not have been sent to the Court. If the petitioner was not involved in this crime then he should have complained about this fact to the higher authorities or to the Court. A number of cases under Gangsters Act is pending against the petitioner in which he is detained in Jail. He has not been arrested so far in this case. It is wrong to say that the petitioner has not committed any offence as mentioned above.

We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, no offence against the petitioner as mentioned in the F. I. R. is made out. A perusal of the F. I. R. goes to show that there are certain allegations against the petitioner that he colluded and conspired with co-accused Surajpal and the constable of the lock-up and got fic titious requisitions prepared, so that he may be produced in court. There is no allegation as to what advantage the petitioner gained by going to the Court on the dates on which his no case was fixed. Nothing has been shown during the course of arguments by the learned Standing Counsel which may support his case that the petitioner was to gain some advantage by production in court on the dates which were not fixed by the Court.

6. The first offence said to have been committed by the petitioner is under Sec tion 420 I. P. C. Section 420 I. P. C. deals with cheating and dishonesty inducing delivery of property. The ingredients of this section is defined in Section 417ipc, which are as under:

(1) That the accused deceived some per son;

(2) That he thereby induced him;

(3) That the inducement was fraudulent or dishonest;

(4) That the person so induced delivered or consented to the retention of some property;

or prove:

(1) That the accused deceived some per son;

(2) That the accused thereby induced him;

(3) That such inducement was intention al;

(4) That the person so induced did or omitted to do something;

(5) That such act or omission caused, or was likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

7. Thus, we find that the petitioner -has not deceived any person by fraudulent or dishonest intention or induced any person to deliver any property to any person. Therefore, no offence of this section is made out against the petitioner.

8. Next offence mentioned in the F. I. R. is Section 4671. P. C. which deals with forgery of valuable security, Will etc. The ingredients of this section are-

(1) That

Click Here to Read the rest of this document