- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.GA. appearing for the State.
(2.) THE relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. registered at Case Crime No.-1501 of 2010, under sections 419,420 and 406,I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Khalilabad, district Ghaziabad. A.T.M. frauds are now reaching alarming proportions, and are constantly in the news. Innocent persons are deprived of their hard earned deposits in the Bank by such fraudsters who have now been found to operate in gangs and a large number of cards have even been recovered from some of them. The allegations in the present F.I.R. lodged on 23.8.2010 were that the informant Smt. Mamta was trying to take out some money from her A.T.M. on 16.8.2010. The A.T.M. machine did network, and one person, who was standing there offered to help her. He took her card and pressed a few buttons, but later he returned the card and told her that the A.T.M. was not working and that she should come on another date. On 20.8.2010, when she tried to withdraw some money from the A.T.M., she found that her account has been reduced from Rs. 1,25,100/- to Rs. 44/-. She also learnt that she had been given an A.T.M. card of some other person. She was informed that on 16.8.2010 there were 3 cash withdrawals'of Rs. 25.000/- and Rs. 75.000/- had been transferred to some other account. From the Bank, she was informed that Rs. 75.000/- had been transferred to the account of the petitioner. The petitioner's defence, which he mentioned in a report lodged on 1.9.2010 was that on 15.8.2010 when he withdrew Rs. 500/- from his account, then one person, who was standing behind him changed his A.T.M. as he had read his code. This person withdrew money from his account on different dates after putting Rs. 25.000/- into it in three transactions. The falsity of the defence is apparent from the fact that if any one had stolen the petitioner's A.T.M., there was no question of his putting Rs. 75.000/- in the said account and it appears far more plausible that the said amount had been transferred when the petitioner had taken the A.T.M. card from the informant and pressed some buttons with her card when she was unable to withdraw money at the A.T.M., and then gave her some other card relating to another account holder.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the person who took the informant's card should be there in the closed circuit camera. If there was a camera in the booth, if the picture of the person who took the informant's card and pressed the buttons was clear, then it could also be utilized for verifying the correctness of the prosecution version in the investigation. It provides no ground for quashing the F.I.R. or staying the arrest at this stage. The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (56) ACC 433, reiterated the view taken by the eariier Full Bench in Safya Pal v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 Cr LJ 569, after considering the various decisions of the Apex Court including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case.;