The court refused the prayer to quash the FIR but directed that the petitioner not be arrested until credible evidence is available or until the end of investigation.
Refused quash of FIR; directed no arrest of petitioner until credible evidence available or submission of police report.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 32
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11840 of 2018
Petitioner :- Tasleem Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Preet Pal Singh Rathore Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. of case crime no. 357 of 2018, under Sections 452, 354 and 506 IPC, Police Station Baheri, District Bareilly.
From the perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that on the basis of the allegations made therein prima facie cognizable offence is made out. There is no ground for interfering in the F.I.R.
Therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is refused.
However, considering the allegations made in the FIR, the provisions of Section 157 Cr.P.C. and the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Versus State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J. 1981, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in above mentioned case, till the credible evidence is not available against him during the investigation or till the submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier.
With the above direction this petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.5.2018 Arun
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. under Sections 452, 354 and 506 IPC should be quashable in view of the facts and allegations.
Whether the petitioner can be arrested during the investigation of the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Joginder Kumar Versus State of U.P.Referred¶9
Joginder Kumar Versus State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J. 1981
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Tasleem Ahmad
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Shashi Kant Gupta
Bachchoo Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
