The court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under the IPC and SC/ST Act. The petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of holding a valid fishery patta as required, and the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence.
The petition seeking quashing of the First Information Report is dismissed.
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. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9947 of 2019
Petitioner :- Iftekhar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J .
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.G.A. for the respondents 1 and 2; and perused the record.
The instant petition seeks quashing of the impugned First Information Report dated 18.03.2019, registered as Case Crime No.0028 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 379, 511 I.P.C and Section 3(2) (Va), 3(1) (Da), 3(1) (Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Nizamabad, District Azamgarh.
The allegation in the first information report is that the informant held a fishery patta of a pond. The accused persons came there and damaged the Bandh (wall) of the pond and started taking out fishes. When the informant resisted, the accused assaulted the informant with lathi, danda, fists and kicks as a result the informant suffered injuries and had to be hospitalized for treatment. It is also alleged that the accused hurled abuses to insult and spite the informant.
The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the last occasion, had tried to raise on argument that the petitioners had a patta (fishery) in their favour and, therefore, the allegations were false.
On the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 16.04.2019, we had required the learned counsel for the petitioners to bring on record document to demonstrate that the petitioners had a patta (fishery) in their favour.
Pursuant to the order dated 16.04.2019, a supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing therewith some receipt dated 08.10.1967, which was allegedly issued in the name of elder brother of the petitioner, namely, Imtiyaz Ahmad. It is claimed that the patta is valid till 10.10.2017, but no document has been enclosed to demonstrate that there had been a valid patta till 10.10.2017.
The first information report has been lodged on 26.02.2019.
Under the circumstances, as the impugned first information report discloses commission of cognizable offence, we do not find a good reason to quash the impugned F.I.R or to interfere with the investigation.
The petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 m.a.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of the first information report should be allowed in the absence of evidence regarding the validity of the fishery patta held by the p
Iftekhar And 3 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Manoj Misra
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
