Sadab Husain And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that, upon perusal of the FIR, it could not be said that no cognizable offence was made out. Therefore, no ground existed for quashing the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners. The Court relied on the Full Bench decisions in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. and Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P., which reiterated the principles from State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, stating that interference with investigation or staying arrest is permissible only if a cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the FIR allegations or if there is a statutory restriction on the police's power to investigate. The Court found that the allegations of forgery and misrepresentation of documents, including GST and PAN numbers, prima facie indicated a cognizable offence. The writ petition was dismissed. However, the Court provided a direction that if the petitioners appear or surrender before the concerned court within thirty days and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law.

Facts

The petitioners, Sadab Husain and three others, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered on January 23, 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by the Chairman of Arambh Agro Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd. The informant alleged that the petitioners, claiming to be Chairman and members of her society, had registered the society themselves, committed irregularities, and forged documents including the society's GST Number, PAN number, and registration number. The petitioners claimed they had an agreement with the informant and an authority letter, asserting they were falsely implicated and harassed. The informant and the State contended that the allegations in the FIR could not be quashed at this stage, and the documents were forged.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence, warranting interference by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction to quash the FIR or stay the arrest of the petitioners, pursuant to the principles laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) and reiterated by this Court in Satya Pal Vs. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) and Ajit Singh @ Muraha Vs. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)? Petitioner's argument: The petitioners argued that no cognizable offence was made out from the FIR, and they were falsely implicated and being harassed. They relied on the informant providing an authority letter to them, suggesting an agreement existed. Respondent's argument: The State and the informant contended that the allegations in the FIR could not be aborted at this stage. They asserted that the informant never executed any agreement with the petitioners and that all documents were forged by the petitioners.