HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1027 of 2026 Asheesh Lamba And Another .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Praneet Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Ram Ashrey Kashyap Court No. - 49 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.

Sri Praneet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the Chief Manager of the Indian Bank while petitioner no. 2 is the Law Manager in the aforesaid bank. The FIR arises out of a legal proceedings initiated by the bank for recovery of its dues. The parents of the respondent no. 4 were borrowers and had defaulted in the payments to the bank. The bank accordingly took out proceedings under the SARFAESI Act for recovering its dues. The FIR is actuated by malafides and has been registered to avoid paying the dues and extort money from the bank officials by setting a third party namely the first informant.

Sri Ram Ashrey Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submits that the respondent no. 4 had earlier moved a writ petition before this Court for reclaiming the machinery, which is the subject matter of the dispute. Moreover, the money dispute still engaging the attention of the DRT.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported at 2023 SCC Online SC 947 wherein after taking note of the tendency among unscrupulous litigants to lodge false criminal cases it was held:

"26. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."

Matter needs consideration.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 as well as learned AGA to file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks.

List thereafter before appropriate Bench.

Till the next date of listing or till the filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. / Sectio