Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under the U.P. Cow Slaughter Act and PCAA. Held that FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, warranting investigation without interference at this stage.
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. - 23849 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shahzad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its S.P., Sambhal And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. 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 29.10.2019 registered as Case Crime No. 929 of 2019, under Sections 3/5/8 of U.P. Cow Slaughter Act and 11 Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960, Police StationMajhola, District Moradabad.
Sri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner states that earlier also an FIR was registered against the petitioner under Cow Slaughter Act in which he has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and after said relief was granted, this 2nd FIR which was lodged at the same police station against the petitioner just to harass him and there is no allegation of slaughtering and there is allegation of transportation only.
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 petitioners.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 16.11.2019/IrfanUddin
(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there are grounds for quashing the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioner prima facie.
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence making it unfit for quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433)
Satya Pal v. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569)
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) · Who else cites this
Shahzad
State Of U.P. Thru. Its S.P., Sambhal And Another
Ramesh Sinha
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
