Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SOBARAN & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sobaran & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 1696 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3452 (14 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Amitava Lala,J.

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker,J.

The petitioner contended that he received a cheque of Rs.82,701/- vide cheque no. 890001 dated 22nd December, 2005 issued by Indian Overseas Bank Civil Lines, Bareilly.   The cheque has been encashed.  The The courier service has lodged the F.I.R. saying that it is wrongly appropriated by the petitioner.  It is in the name of M/s Gupta Travels.  The petitioner is saying that he is proprietor of M/s Gupta Travels. Therefore, there might be a dispute in respect of the similarity in the names.  However, since the petitioner has given an undertaking before this Court that even if after checking the accounts of his proprietor ship concern he found that it is not in the name of M/s Gupta Travels in which he is proprietor it will be definitely returned.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we direct the Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 186 of 2006, under Sections 420,467,471 I.P.C Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly to conclude the investigation within a period of three months from the date, on which a certified copy of this order is presented before him.  The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the Investigating Officer in all possible manner.  If the Investigating Officer or informant found himself aggrieved due to falsification, misstatement, fraud, non-cooperation with the Investigating Officer or any other reasons whatsoever relevant for the purpose, he is at liberty to  apply for recalling/ variation/ vacating/ modification of the order.

However, the petitioner will not be arrested in the above mentioned case crime number till the submission of the charge sheet, if any.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

However, no order is passed as to costs.

Dt.14.2.06

PKB

Crl.WP1694-06


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.