Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sanjay Pandey v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 3351 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10118 (23 May 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).


Court No.3

Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.3351 of 2006

Sanjay Pandey                     ....                                  Petitioner


State of U.P. and others       ....                                  Respondents.

         :  Present :

(Hon.Mr.Justice Amitava Lala and Hon.Mr.Justice Shiv Shanker)

: Appearance :

For the Petitioner                     ....         Sri V.P.Srivastava

For the Respondents                ....         Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava &

           Learned A.G.A.

Amitava Lala,J.-  The First Information Report (hereinafter called as F.I.R.) has been lodged at Gorakhpur from where goods were dispatched.  The petitioner is commission agent which has allegedly violated the provisions under Section 406 along with Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. at Delhi or at Ghaziabad. For the purpose of criminal case the appropriate place of offence is the place for taking steps in connection thereto.  We find from the argument as made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there are good ground on account of jurisdiction as well as the dispute of civil nature.  Having so the following order can be passed in this proceeding.

The Investigating Officer of the Case Crime No. 44 of 2006, under Sections 406,504,506, I.P.C., Police Station Rajghat,  District Gorakhpur is directed 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/final report, if any.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

No order is passed as to costs.

  ( Justice Amitava Lala )

I agree.

( Justice Shiv Shanker )





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


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 |

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