This court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under the Cow Slaughter Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, holding that the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence.
No relief was granted regarding the quashing of the FIR.
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. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13216 of 2018
Petitioner :- Irshad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Sadab Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri M.S. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 25.9.2017, registered as case crime no.400 of 2017, u/s 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and 11 of Prevention of Cruelty against Animal Act, 1960, P.S. Moth, district Jhansi.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR. His name has come into light during the course of investigation. The allegations made against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless, hence present FIR be quashed. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses the cognizable offence.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (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.
From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 22.5.2018 Gaurav
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR disclosing a cognizable offence under the Cow Slaughter Act and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act should be quashed from the record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Irshad
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Ramesh Sinha
Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
