Pavan Prakash Verma v. State of U.P. and

Petitioner :- Deepak Solanki Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jahnavi Tripathi,Varun Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pankaj Dwivedi Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

1. Heard Ms. Jahnavi Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A for the State respondents and Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4-Informant and perused the record.

2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 12.3.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 0064 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

3. On 11.12.2024 following order was passed: "Considering the fact that a coordinate bench has rejected the challenge to the impugned FIR in Writ Petition No. 4872 of 2023, we are of the view that the present matter be placed before the same bench after obtaining necessary orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice."

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, present petition has been nominated to this Bench (presided over by Vivek Kumar Birla, J.) In the above quoted order it has been clearly taken note of that earlier petition filed by one co-accused Pavan Prakash Verma being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4872 of 2023 (Pavan Prakash Verma vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) has already been dismissed vide order dated 6.4.2023 by the Bench presided over by one of us (Vivek Kumar Birla, J.), therefore, present petition has been placed before this Court.

5. The aforesaid order dated 6.4.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4872 of 2023 (Pavan Prakash Verma vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) is quoted as under: "Heard Sri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A for the State respondents. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 12.3.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 064 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Fatehpur Sikari, District Agra. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has no concern with the offence as alleged in the present case regarding interpolation/change/forgery committed on the date of birth of the certificate of the accused Vinod Katara whose life imprisonment was affirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the main allegation is against the Gram Pradhan Sachiv and the first information report reflects that the petitioner was not having original record of the accused but he has been falsely implicated. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence. It is further submitted that it is a case of fabrication in the document, so that the benefit of being juvenile may be granted to the life convict. As such, a serious cognizable offence has been made out. Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. We find that the assertions made by the petitioner including the attention to annexure 4 to the petition are nothing but the defence of the accused person, which cannot be considered for quashing the first information report. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to distinguish the role of the petitioner herein Deepak Solanki on the ground that he is merely a Gaon Panchayat Sachiv and he is properly performing his duty in diligent manner with proper care and caution. She further submits that he has been falsely implicated and he is not beneficiary of the interpolation or forgery committed in the date of birth certificate of the accused Vinod Katara whose life imprisonment was affirmed upto the Hon'ble High Court and in this manner learned counsel for the petitioner sought to draw distinction and submits that no offence as alleged has been committed by the petitioner.

7. Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant highlighted the fact that in the aforesaid order, it is clearly reflected that submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner therein was that the main allegation is against the Gram Pradhan Sachiv, i.e., petitioner herein and that the petitioner therein Pavan Prakash Verma was not having original record of the accused and has been falsely implicated.

8. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR by submitting that it is a case of fabrication in the document, so that the benefit of being juvenile may be granted to a life convict. As such, a serious cognizable offence has been made out. Learned AGA, on instructions, submits that in investigation uptil now the role of the petitioner has figured.

9. We find that there is specific allegation against the present petitioner Deepak Solanki who was Gaon Panchayat Sachiv and the Principal Pavan Prakash Verma. Undisputedly, petition filed by Pavan Prakash Verma has already been dismissed on merit after considering the rival submissions.

10. Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence.

11. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.

12. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Abhishek

Petitioner :- Deepak Solanki Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jahnavi Tripathi,Varun Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Pankaj Dwivedi Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

1. Heard Ms. Jahnavi Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A for the State respondents and Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4-Informant and perused the record.

2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 12.3.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 0064 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

3. On 11.12.2024 following order was passed: "Considering the fact that a coordinate bench has rejected the challenge to the impugned FIR in Writ Petition No. 4872 of 2023, we are of the view that the present matter be placed before the same bench after obtaining necessary orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice."

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, present petition has been nominated to this Bench (presided over by Vivek Kumar Birla, J.) In the above quoted order it has been clearly taken note of that earlier petition filed by one co-accused Pavan Prakash Verma being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4872 of 2023 (Pavan Prakash Verma vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) has already been dismissed vide order dated 6.4.2023 by the Bench presided over by one of us (Vivek Kumar Birla, J.), therefore, present petition has been placed before this Court.

5. The aforesaid order dated 6.4.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4872 of 2023 (Pavan Prakash Verma vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) is quoted as under: "Heard Sri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A for the State respondents. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 12.3.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 064 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120B IPC, Police Station Fatehpur Sikari, District Agra. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has no concern with the offence as alleged in the present case regarding interpolation/change/forgery committed on the date of birth of the certificate of the accused Vinod Katara whose life imprisonment was affirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the main allegation is against the Gram Pradhan Sachiv and the first information report reflects that the petitioner was not having original record of the accused but he has been falsely implicated. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence. It is further submitted that it is a case of fabrication in the document, so that the benefit of being juvenile may be granted to the life convict. As such, a serious cognizable offence has been made out. Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. We find that the assertions made by the petitioner including the attention to annexure 4 to the petition are nothing but the defence of the accused person, which cannot be considered for quashing the first information report. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in accordance with law."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to distinguish the role of the petitioner herein Deepak Solanki on the ground that he is merely a Gaon Panchayat Sachiv and he is properly performing his duty in diligent manner with proper care and caution. She further submits that he has been falsely implicated and he is not beneficiary of the interpolation or forgery committed in the date of birth certificate of the accused Vinod Katara whose life imprisonment was affirmed upto the Hon'ble High Court and in this manner learned counsel for the petitioner sought to draw distinction and submits that no offence as alleged has been committed by the petitioner.

7. Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant highlighted the fact that in the aforesaid order, it is clearly reflected that submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner therein was that the main allegation is against the Gram Pradhan Sachiv, i.e., petitioner herein and that the petitioner therein Pavan Prakash Verma was not having original record of the accused and has been falsely implicated.

8. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR by submitting that it is a case of fabrication in the document, so that the benefit of being juvenile may be granted to a life convict. As such, a serious cognizable offence has been made out. Learned AGA, on instructions, submits that in investigation uptil now the role of the petitioner has figured.

9. We find that there is specific allegation against the present petitioner Deepak Solanki who was Gaon Panchayat Sachiv and the Principal Pavan Prakash Verma. Undisputedly, petition filed by Pavan Prakash Verma has already been dismissed on merit after considering the rival submissions.

10. Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence.

11. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.

12. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Abhishek