ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, JJ.
HIMANSHU KHATRI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UP AND OTHERS - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 34314 of 2018
Decided on : 07-02-2019
FIR Quashing - Criminal Breach of Trust, Cheating, Forgery - Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC - The court analyzed the allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and forgery against the petitioner and refused to quash the FIR, emphasizing the need for deep investigation by the authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the impugned FIR dated 14.11.2018, which alleged criminal breach of trust, cheating, and forgery against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court refused to quash the FIR, emphasizing the need for deep investigation by the authorities to resolve the factual disputes between the parties.
Issues: The issues involved allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and forgery against the petitioner, and the request to quash the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disputed facts and the defense of the accused cannot be considered at the pre-investigation/trial stage, and the allegations made in the FIR disclosed the commission of a cognizable offense, warranting deep investigation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court refused to exercise discretionary jurisdiction to quash the FIR.
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Yes Tandan, and Sri Brijesh Sahai, assisted by Sri Azad Khan and Sri Bhavya Sahai, Advocates for respondent No.4 and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Sand, learned Additional Government Advocate Ist assisted by Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned AGA Ist for the State.
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Respondent No.4 has filed counter affidavit dated 29.11.2018 after serving the copy of the same upon the learned counsel for petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the Bar that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit and the present writ petition may be heard on merit at this stage itself. In view of the above, this matter is being decided finally at the admission stage itself.
Relief claimed in the writ petition:
3. The petitioner invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has filed this writ petition with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 14.11.2018 lodged by respondent No.4 against the petitioner registered as Case Crime No. 1835 of 2018, under Sections 408, 406 and 420 I.P.C. at Police Station Noida, Sector-20, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Prosecution case:
4. The prosecution case in brief as mentioned in the impugned F.I.R. dated 14.11.2018 is that the informant Phill Alaph S/o Sri Robert Edward Alape R/o 379, Hill Street San Francisco California, USA, who is respondent no.4 in the writ petition is citizen of U.S.A. He is director and CEO of a company viz. Vsolay, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Point Marketing, Inc, which is a software company and is in business of developing software and selling them to different clients. In 2006 company of the informant had come into contact with petitioner Himanshu Khatri who represented that he would hire individual software developers from India to build technology product for the informant. The process for engaging these individuals has been that their Cvs, education, credentials and experience were scrutinized by petitioner and he after verification sent the same to the informant along with the range of hourly compensation they expected to receive for their work. It is alleged that petitioner as agent of informant's company was getting a 1 USD per hour per person management fee agreed to cover costs and provide some margin for petitioner Mr. Himanshu Khatri. All the costs of computers, internet, cabs, etc. were borne by informant's company. Petitioner also took USD 20,000/- in the account of his sister Seema Jhurani for management costs. During the entire period of engagement petitioner fraudulently misrepresented the true identities of the individuals as well as their experience and their compensation. Petitioner sent forged C.V.s of the candidates after increasing their age and experience to the informant and in some cases after changing the names of the candidates also sent forged and photo-shopped ID cards to substantiate the forged C.Vs. Instead of experienced software engineers petitioner hired very unexperienced and junior person but charged from the informant for higher experienced persons. All this continued to happen from 2006 to 2015. In the end of year 2015, informant came to know that petitioner has been perpetrating a deep fraud, since beginning. He has hired very junior developers at very low cost, and hidden their true identities, levels of experience, and skills behind fraudulent identities, false names and fraudulent C.Vs and cheated informant. When informant came to know about general out line of aforesaid fraud of the petitioner, he requested the petitioner for validation of the identities and experience levels of the team, then petitioner provided a number of forged and fabricated documents, various government issued identity cards, Voter Cards, Driving Licenses and the photos
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.