Dismissed

Raju @ Hashim Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2020CRLP/4505/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the petitioner's plea to quash the FIR alleging false implication in a peaceful protest. It directed that investigation continue but prohibited the petitioner's arrest until the police report is submitted.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Investigation directed to continue; Petitioner directed not to be arrested until police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is submitted.

Raju @ Hashim Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4505 of 2020 Petitioner :- Raju @ Hashim Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hemendra Pratap Singh,Anshu Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. S.B. Maurya, the learned A.G.A.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 23.2.2020, registered as Case Crime No.0034 of 2020, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 427, 332, 353, 436 I.P.C and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Aligarh.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being cousin of Salman Shahid, Yuva Pradesh Sachiv of Samajwadi Party, has been falsely implicated, it was a peaceful protest against the Government policies, neither any public/ private property was damaged, nor stones pelted as also no one received any injury, FIR is politically motivated, lodged at the behest of local leader of ruling party, no offence is made out against the petitioner, FIR be quashed.

¶7

Per contra learned A.G.A, submitted that from the perusal of the impugned F.I.R, and on the basis of the allegations made therein, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is disclosed against the petitioner.

¶8

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned F.I.R, we are not inclined to quash the same.

¶9

However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that investigation of the aforesaid case shall go on but the petitioner shall not be arrested till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, subject to their extending full cooperation during investigation.

¶10

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

¶11

Order Date :- 6.3.2020 N.S.Rathour

Raju @ Hashim Khan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Hashim Khan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajni Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shiv Mangal Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rani Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Naseem Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Babu Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Dwivedi @ Pushpendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others