Back
2016 Supreme(UK) 226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Girdhari Lal Sahu - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 967 of 2016
Decided On : 04-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Mr. K.R. Gazi
For the State/Respondent: Mr. K.S. Rautela, Mr. Milind Raj
The necessity of arrest and the factors for anticipatory bail must be carefully evaluated based on the available material and the facts of the particular case.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Writ Petition - IPC 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR lodged against him for offenses under IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506. The FIR alleged forgery and cheating in a land transaction.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the allegations and found that the offenses under Sections 420 and 506 IPC were prima facie made out, but questioned the presence of forgery and cheating elements.
Issues: The court considered whether the petitioner was entitled to benefit under Section 41 Cr.P.C. and whether the arrest was necessary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's directions in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra to determine the necessity of arrest and the factors to be considered for anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to contact the Investigating Officer and not leave the state without permission until the investigation was completed. The criminal writ petition was disposed of summarily at the admission stage.
U.C. Dhyani, J.
By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others:-
i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the first information report dated 26.07.2016 in FIR no. 201 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, at police station Kichcha, District Udham Singh Nagar.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 not to arrest and not to harass the petitioner in FIR no. 201 of 2016, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC at police station Kichcha, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. An FIR was lodged by respondent no. 3 against the petitioner on 26.07.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC. The relevant portion of said FIR reads as under:-
“…Khasra no. 107 in Village Chutki Deveria is recorded in my (reporter's) name. An agreement to sell was entered into between the applicant (read informant/reporter) and G.L. Sahu s/o Ram Swaroop, r/o Brajanand Vihar, Lalpur, R.T.O. Road, Haldwani, in which it was agreed that the sale deed will only be executed between the applicant and G.L. Sahu. G.L. Sahu concealed this fact from the applicant that the sale deed cannot be executed in his (G.L. Sahu's) name. According to the agreement to sell, out of four portions, first two portions (of land) were to be registered in the name of Mahendra Singh Bisht. It was agreed orally, as well as on the basis of agreement to sell that plotting will be done on the said land, and all the conditions will be fulfilled accordingly. But, G.L. Sahu did not fulfill any of the conditions. He even sold the passage etc. to other persons and got the same registered in other's favour. G.L. Sahu himself is the witness of the sale deed, which was executed by him in favour of Mahendra Singh Bisht, Girish Chandra Joshi. G.L. Sahu has cheated and committed forgery in relation to the transaction of the land. Inspite of the expiry of the duration, he did not execute the sale deed. Many a people came to take possession over that land which was sold by G.L. Sahu in applicant (reporter's) favour. A few names are-Dinesh Kumar, Mahesh Gangwar and Manoj Sharma. G.L. Sahu has also threatened him to vacate the land….”.
3. Section 467 IPC deals with forgery of valuable security, will, etc. The same is being reproduced here-in-below for convenience:-
“467. Whoever forges a document with purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to given authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
4. Further, Section 468 IPC deals with forgery for purpose of cheating, which Section is being reproduced here-in-below for convenience:
“468. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
5. Section 420 IPC speaks about cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The same reads as under:
“420. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
