Disposed

Amir Faisal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2021CRLP/5945/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition regarding police harassment in a domestic police complaint, the State respondent clarified that the police acted under a misconception. Consequently, there is no address to be provided and the petitioner is no longer required. The court disposed of the petition based on this statement.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of the writ petition without granting specific relief as the cause of action is extinguished.

Amir Faisal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5945 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Amir Faisal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saroj Kumar Dubey,Dharmaveer Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Saroj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

¶6

On 05.08.2021, this court passed the following order:-

¶7

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

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is Amir Faisal son of Mohd Yasin, resident of Jamal Ashik, Maunath Bhanjan, Police Station - Kotwali Mau, District - Mau, who is being unnecessarily harassed by the police in connection with Complaint Case No.780/2015 (Aijaj Ahmad Vs. Faisal), under Sections 504, 506, 379 & 427 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District - Mau

¶9

It is further submitted that Faisal who is accused in the aforesaid complaint case is another person. For this reason the petitioner filed an application in the aforesaid complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, which was disposed of by order dated 21.01.2020 in which it was clearly observed that non bailable warrant is not against the petitioner but it is against one Sri Faisal against whom an order under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has also been passed. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid facts and the order dated 21.01.2020, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau, police is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner in the aforesaid complaint case.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted a week's time to enable the respondent no.2 to file a counter affidavit.

¶11

Put up as a fresh case on 12.08.2021"

¶12

Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2021, learned A.G.A, has received instructions. He states that as per instructions, the police under some misconception of the facts went to the resident of the petitioner, as soon as respondents came to know that the petitioner is person other than the accused Amir Faisal son of Mohd. Yasin, therefore, State-respondent have corrected the address and the police shall not require the petitioner herein in relation to the Complaint Case No. 780 of 2015, under Sections 504, 506, 379, 427 I.P.C. pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid statement given by the learned A.G.A. based on the instructions, no cause of action survive. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed off in terms of statement/instructions stated above.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.8.2021 T.S.

Amir Faisal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir Faisal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Taiyab Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vineet Narain Vs State of U.P. & others

Dushyant Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Shilu @ Shilu Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Om Prakash Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Arun Kumar Vs State of U P and 2 Others