Petitioner challenged coercive action under the U.P. Excise Act and IPC, alleging the FIR named him incorrectly. The Court held that factual discrepancies regarding identity are outside writ jurisdiction, dismissing the petition with liberty to apply for bail.
Petition dismissed with liberty to apply for bail.
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. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10698 of 2019
Petitioner :- Rajendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narsingh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the F.I.R dated 13.03.2019, registered as Case Crime No. 63 of 2019 at P.S. Chhawni, District Basti under Section 60 of U.P. Excise Act & 272, 273 IPC.
The allegation in the F.I.R., which has been lodged by SubInspector of the police, is that information was received that two persons with illicit liquor laced with urea and nausadar were standing at a particular place and waiting for transport. It is alleged that the police swung into action and found two persons standing with one bag each. Upon seeing the police, they fled leaving the bag containing pouches of illicit liquor laced with adulterants. The two accused who fled were Raj Kishor and Rajendra, who were brothers.
The F.I.R. lodged disclosed the name of the accused as Raj Kishor son of Kaykai Nishad and Rajendra son of Kaykai Nishad.
The instant petition has been filed by Rajendra son of Dubari claiming that the police is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner even though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. in as much as the F.I.R. has been lodged against Rajendra, son of Kaykai Nishad.
In view of the above, on 23.04.2019, we had passed following order:-
"Put up on 30.04.2019 to enable the learned A.G.A. to seek instructions whether the petitioner is wanted in case crime no.63 of 2019 or not because as per allegation in the first information report the accused is stated to be Rajendra son of Kekai whereas the petitioner has disclosed himself as Rajendra
son of Dubari.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in Case Crime No.63 of 2019, under Sections 60 of U.P. Excise Act & 272, 273 IPC, P.S. Chhawni, District Basti . "
Pursuant to the above order, learned A.G.A. has obtained instruction from the police station concern and it has been stated, on the basis of the instruction and CD Entry No. 3 dated 14.03.2019, that in the statement correct name of the father of the petitioner, namely, Dubari, has come. Hence, the petitioner is wanted.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the above correction has been made deliberately to save a person who is there in the village by the same name.
Be that as it may, that is a pure factual aspect which cannot be examined and appreciated in the writ jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply for bail.
Order Date :- 9.5.2019 Ujjawal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is the correct accused in the FIR cited by RPG and if the name discrepancy warrants quashing under writ jurisdiction.
Whether a factual discrepancy in the name of the accused justifies quashing the FIR or prevention of coercive action.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajendra son of Dubari
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Manoj Misra
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
