Disposed¶12

Saud v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2020CRLP/6921/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused — Case Crime No. 44 of 2020, P.S. Pawal, District Azamgarh — Sections 269, 270, 188 I.P.C., 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, 4/25 Arms Act — FIR lodged by respondent no. 4 — prima facie cognizable offence made out — no arrest till police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. — protection from arrest during investigation subject to co-operation — petition finally disposed of — Order dated 8.7.2020 — Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis, J. and Dinesh Pathak, J.

What did the court decide?

Protection from arrest: petitioner not to be arrested in the aforesaid case till submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to co-operation with the investigation and appearance as and when called upon to assist in the investigation; prayer to quash the F.I.R. refused. ¶12

Saud Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6921 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Saud Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nayab Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 01.05.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 44 of 2020 under Sections 269, 270, 188 I.P.C., 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station, Pawal, District Azamgarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent no. 4 containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the petitioner with the ulterior intention of harassing him. He further submitted that 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 petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime and hence the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. contended that the allegations made in the F.I.R. cannot be aborted at this stage. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to rebut the allegations.

¶9

From perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie cognizable offences is made out at this stage against the petitioner, therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to quash the first information report. The prayer for quashing the F.I.R. is refused.

¶10

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the

¶11

aforesaid case till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., subject to the restraint that he 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 :- 8.7.2020 VR/

Saud v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saud v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harjinder Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anita Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ramakant Patel and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kaloo Shivhare Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suraj and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others