Dismissed

Jhallo v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2023CRLP/16650/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR under the Cow Slaughter Act. The court held that the petitioner was falsely implicated and no independent eye-witness existed, but rejected the petition because an arrested co-accused assigned an identical role to the petitioner, preventing partial quashing.

What did the court decide?

Relief sought for quashing of FIR and stay on arrest was dismissed.

Jhallo Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:220186-DB

¶2

Court No. - 45

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16650 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Jhallo Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

1 . Heard Sri Arun Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Kumar Pal, learned A.G.A for the State respondents.

¶7

2 . The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 9.6.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 176 of 2023, under Sections 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Thariaon, District Fatehpur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.

¶8

3 . At the very outset, learned AGA submits that a charge-sheet has already been submitted against co-accused Mohd. Syed and FIR cannot be quashed in part. He further submits that co-accused arrested on spot has specifically taken name of the petitioner herein and that they both carried on offences as alleged.

¶9

4 . Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and no offence is made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the offence as alleged. The petitioner herein is a motor mechanic and he is not involved in cow slaughtering and transportation and there is no independent eye-witness.

¶10

5 . Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. We find that spot arrested co-accused has assigned identical role to the petitioner herein and therefore, FIR cannot be quashed in part.

¶11

6 . Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.

¶12

7 . Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 21.11.2023 Abhishek

¶14

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jhallo v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhallo 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivji Gupta and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satya Prakash Singh @ Rudal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Harish Ansari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prem Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hemant Banswal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neeraj Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others