Abdul Salam vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that a perusal of the impugned FIR prima facie revealed the commission of a cognizable offense. Citing the Supreme Court judgments in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, and Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & Anr. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court found that the present case was not a fit case for quashing the FIR or for any other interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. The Court reasoned that various factual aspects of the matter required investigation. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the petitioner left open to apply for bail before the competent court in accordance with law.

Facts

The petitioner, Abdul Salam, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered on April 27, 2023, at Police Station Kalwari, District Basti, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating and forgery. The petitioner also sought a direction to prevent his arrest pending investigation. The dispute arose from a partnership firm where the petitioner and respondent no. 3 were partners. The petitioner contended that the matter should be resolved through arbitration as per the partnership deed and that no cognizable offense was made out. The respondents, including the State and the informant, opposed the petition, alleging that the petitioner obtained a second GST registration for the firm using forged documents and opened a bank account on forged documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the First Information Report (FIR) dated 27.04.2023, Case Crime No. 0115 of 2023, discloses commission of a cognizable offense warranting quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the dispute was essentially a civil dispute related to partnership property and that the partnership deed contained an arbitration clause. He contended that no cognizable offense was made out against him based on the FIR and other materials on record. Respondent's Contention: The State and the informant contended that the FIR disclosed the commission of cognizable offenses, specifically alleging that the petitioner obtained a second GST registration for the firm using forged documents and opened a bank account on forged documents. They argued that these actions constituted criminal offenses and that the FIR was therefore valid.