The court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an F.I.R. under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. Upholding established principles, the bench found the F.I.R. disclosed a cognizable offence, thereby rejecting the petition.
Prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and stay of arrest was rejected.
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. - 21191 of 2018 Petitioner :- Aash Mohmmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Babu Vaish Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Shyam Babu Vaish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K. Verma, learned A.G.A. appearing 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 14.04.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 0115 of 2018, under Sections 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police StationBhawan Bahadur Nagar, District Bulandshahr.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. which discloses 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 :- 6.8.2018 AU
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the F.I.R. discloses a cognizable offence precluding interference under Article 226.
Whether the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and stay of arrest can be granted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Followed¶8
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Followed¶8
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalFollowed¶8
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Aash Mohmmad
State Of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
