MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Jitendra Singh Rawat – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 0128 of 2022, under Section 386, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Nehru Colony, District Dehradun. Further prayer has been made for a direction to respondent no. 1 to initiate departmental enquiry against respondent no. 3. The F.I.R. is on record as Annexure No.-4 to the writ petition.
3. It is alleged in the FIR that complainant runs a meat shop, his brother Umesh Kumar purchased a land for a sale consideration of Rs.43,00,000/- from one Suresh Singh, in lieu of which, he paid a sum of Rs.28,00,000/-, remaining amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was to be paid by complainant’s brother, after execution of sale deed, which he could not pay. On account of nonpayment of money, Suresh Singh got the sale deed cancelled with mutual consent, on the assurance given by Suresh Singh that he will return the money. After some time, complainant along with his brother went to Suresh Singh asking for return of money, who sought three days’ time. On 21.04.2022, petitioner called respondent no. 3 from his mobile by introducing himself as bad
State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma [(1996) 7 SCC 705 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 497 : JT (1996) 2 SC 488]
State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan
Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada [(1997) 2 SCC 397 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 415 : JT (1996) 11 SC 175
State of West Bengal vs. Swapna Kumar Guha
Isaac Isanga Musumba and others v. State of Mahrashtra and others
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & others reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918
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.