Dismissed

Jameel Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2019CRLP/9550/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge refused to quash the FIR alleging encroachment of State land, finding no ground to nip it in the bud. However, directed the petitioners not to be arrested until police report submission under Cr.P.C. 173(2) if they cooperate with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing FIR refused; directed non-arrest of petitioners pending police report submission if they cooperate with investigation.

Jameel Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9550 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Jameel Ahmad And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sadaful Islam Jafri,Nazrul Islam Jafri Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned AGA for the respondents-State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the first information report dated 19.12.2018 bearing Case Crime No. 1223 of 2018, under Section 447 I.P.C. and Section 3/5 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Bahedi, district Bareilly.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are unnecessarily being harassed by the police authorities. The first information report has been lodged by the respondent no. 3 with the allegations that the petitioners have taken illegal possession by encroaching over the State land. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire prosecution story is the outcome of personal grudge of the respondent no. 3. There is nothing on record to substantiate the allegation made against the petitioners rather it reflects the manoeuvring on the part of the respondent no. 3. Therefore, the first information report so lodged by the respondent no. 3 is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra the learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations contained in the first information report cannot be nipped in the bud. There are sufficient material showing the complicity of the petitioners. The innocence of the petitioners cannot be adjudged at this stage.

¶9

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable

¶10

offences is made out at this stage against the petitioners therefore, we do not find any cogent or convincing reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the first information report is refused.

¶11

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear as and when called upon to assist in the investigation.

¶12

With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 12.4.2019 Shahnawaz

Jameel Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jameel Ahmad and 2 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Ankit and 2 Ors.

Ishwari and Anr. Vs State of U.P.

Karishma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neeraj Jadaun and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramsurat @ Rampratap Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others