Remanded

Sohrab v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 May 2019CRLP/10173/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the court considered the petitioner's application for quashing an FIR under cow slaughter and animal cruelty laws. The High Court, while declining to quash the FIR, stayed the petitioner's arrest pending the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., directing continued investigation.

What did the court decide?

Directed that investigation be continued and petitioner shall not be arrested until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to cooperation.

Sohrab Vs State of U.P. and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10173 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sohrab Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Monis Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.

¶6

The instant petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 31.3.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 69 of 2019, under Sections 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, Police Station Khakhreru, District Fatehpur.

¶7

The allegation in the impugned F.I.R. is that when the police, upon information that a cow was to be slaughtered, reached the spot in time, found that a cow was about to be slaughtered. It is alleged that two persons were apprehended on the spot whereas two persons including the petitioner managed to escape. A cow, which was tied up, was recovered with cutting tools, equipments, etc.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that recovery has not been made from a place in his possession and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the petitioner but he has been implicated on the basis of confessional statement made before the police. It has been submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated.

¶9

Be that as it may, as correctness of the allegations are not

¶10

ordinarily to be tested in writ jurisdiction, therefore, the prayer of the petitioners to quash the F.I.R. cannot be accepted.

¶11

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the role of the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to dispose off the petition by providing that investigation of the case shall continue and be brought to its logical conclusion, but, subject to petitioner's cooperation in the investigation, he shall not be arrested in the above case till submission of police report, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., in the aforesaid case.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.5.2019 Manish Tripathi

Sohrab v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohrab v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jeetu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahim Alias Raheesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Devendra Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Zakir Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nishant Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others