Court refused to quash an FIR under the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act as allegations disclosed a cognizable offence. The prayer for interim stay on arrest was denied, directing the petitioner to approach the high court for anticipatory bail.
Prayer for quashing FIR and interim stay dismissed; petitioner directed to apply for anticipatory 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. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17719 of 2019
Petitioner :- Salman Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankit Agarval Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ankit Agarval, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Narain Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 30.11.2018 registered as case crime no. 0559 of 2018 under section 3/8 of Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, P.S. Shikarpur, District Bulandshahar.
Having scanned the allegations contained in the F.I.R. the Court is of the view that the allegations in the F.I.R. do disclose commission of cognizable offence and/therefore no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is refused.
The petitioner/s has also prayed for an interim order to stay the arrest during the course of investigation relating to the FIR that is sought to be quashed in this petition. In view of the judgment of Apex Court passed the case of State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal Rungta reported in AIR 1952 SC 12 and Kala Bharti Advertising vs. Hemant Vimal Nath Narichania & ors. reported in 2010 (9) SCC 437 when we are not inclined to grant the main relief sought by the petitioner/s, it would not be appropriate to grant the ancillary relief. Beside that the petitioner, who is apprehending his arrest is having an efficacious remedy of filing an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) to have anticipatory bail.
The petitioner/s may avail such remedy if so advised. As there appears to be an interim order passed in this petition by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 28.6.2019 staying arrest of the petitioner/s, the same shall remain continue till 30.07.2019, provided the petitioner/s move an application before the Court competent as per provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) on or before 26th of July, 2019.
The petition for writ is disposed of accordingly.
(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 22.7.2019 A. Tripathi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence warranting a case under the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act.
Whether the prayer for anticipatory bail is maintainable given the failure to move an application under Section 438 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal RungtaReferred¶8
AIR 1952 SC 12 · Who else cites this
Kala Bharti Advertising vs. Hemant Vimal Nath Narichania & ors.Referred¶8
2010 (9) SCC 437 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Salman
State Of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
