- (1.) Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sanyukta Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No.421 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988., Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioner; that petitioner is aggrieved against the lodging of the FIR dated 03.06.2018, in pursuance of which the police authority are harassing the petitioner under the garb of fair investigation; that a company was floated as far back in the year 2011 in which the present petitioner who is a woman was a director alongwith her husband; that at the very out set it has been informed that the husband of the petitioner had already been arrested and subsequently he has been released on bail; that entire share holding was initially in favour of the directors of the company that is in the name of the petitioner and her husband; that thereafter the company was transferred in the year 2013 in favour of one Satendra Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar and the entire share holding of the company was also transferred in the name of Satendra Singh and Sanjeev Kumar; that the petitioner in her capacity as a director of the company had already resigned as far back in the year 2014 and thus it has been contended that since the year 2014 neither the petitioner nor her husband had any role to play in the day-to-day affairs of the management of the company; that the record further shows that there is an allegation to the effect against the petitioner that the company had purchased some land from some tenure holder and subsequently the said land which was purchased by the company had been transferred to the Yamuna Express Way at a very high price and thus a fraud has been committed; that it has been very vehemently contended by Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the various sale deeds which were executed between the tenure holder and the company, the petitioner is neither a vendor nor a vendee nor a beneficiary nor even a marginal witness in the execution of the said sale deeds; that the land was purchased by the Satyendra Kumar as the authorized representative of the company and he is the signatory to the said sale deed and subsequently these lands were transferred to Yamuna Express Way again by the company through Satyendra Kumar, as authorized representative of the company and the present petitioner had nothing to do with the same; that the counsel for the petitioner had strongly contended that the present petitioner and her husband had resigned as Director of the company as far back in the year 2014 and the entire share holding of the company was also transferred to Satyendra Kumar and Sanjeev Singh; that much reliance has been placed on the averments made in paragraph nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the writ petition; that apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence; further contention is that the petitioner who happens to a woman with no previous criminal history will cooperate with the investigation and hence her arrest is not required at this stage of the proceeding; that it has been further assured on behalf of the petitioner that she will cooperate and participate in the investigation and thus it is prayed that the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.;