Disposed

Muli v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 May 2019CRLP/14611/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the prayer to quash the F.I.R. as cognizable offences were made out. However, the court directed that no coercive action be taken if the petitioner surrenders and applies for bail within two months, citing relevant case law.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of quash petition; suspension of coercive action for two months if petitioner surrenders and applies for bail.

Muli Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14611 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Muli Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F. I. R. which has been registered as Case Crime No.0009 of 2019, under Sections 3, 5- A, 8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act & Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station Kachhawa, District Mirzapur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioner; no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence and hence the impugned F.I.R. which is a bundle of lies and motivated by malice, is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the impugned F. I. R., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out, hence the impugned F.I.R. is not liable to be quashed.

¶9

Having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned first information as well as the other material brought on record, we are not inclined to quash the impugned F.I.R.

¶10

However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case, petitioner appears and surrenders before the court below within two months from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of two months from today or till petitioner surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against petitioner. However, in case, petitioner does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 28.5.2019 Puspendra

Muli v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muli v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnapal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Pintu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Paramhans Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kalua Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Jyotsana Jaiswal and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others