Disposed

Amit Tiwari @ Guddu Pandit v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2019CRLP/342/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash the impugned F.I.R. under the Cow Slaughter Act and PACT-1960. However, the court directed that bail be considered if the petitioner surrenders within two months and no coercive action shall be taken during this period.

What did the court decide?

No coercive action to be taken against petitioners for two months if they appear and apply for bail; writ petition dismissed.

Amit Tiwari @ Guddu Pandit Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 342 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Amit Tiwari @ Guddu Pandit Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudist Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and 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. 90 of 2018, under Section 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 Prevention of Animal from cruelty Act 1960, Police Station-Kandwa, District-Chandauli.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the complainant-respondent containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioners with the ulterior intention of harassing the petitioners; apart from the bald allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., no evidence is forthcoming even prima facie indicating at the complicity of the petitioners 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, petitioners 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 petitioners surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against petitioners. However, in case, petitioners do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 8.1.2019 Rahul.

Amit Tiwari @ Guddu Pandit v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Tiwari @ Guddu Pandit v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Ramvilas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Swami Shree Yogi Satyam and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Uma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sandeep Pandey Alias Mintu Pandey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others