Partly allowed¶1

Rizwana v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 May 2026WPCRL/792/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR sought under Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 (Sections 3, 5, 11); Case Crime No. 121 of 2026, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. Petitioner no. 2 opted to surrender — petition dismissed as not pressed qua him. Petitioner no. 1 (Rizwana) granted protection from coercive action until completion of investigation, conditional on cooperation; investigation allowed to proceed, FIR not quashed at this stage. Single-judge order by Justice Rakesh Thapliyal dated 04.05.2026; counsel Mohd. Safdar for petitioners, Meenakshi Sharma (AGA) for the State.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not pressed qua petitioner no. 2 (who is to surrender); qua petitioner no. 1 (Rizwana), no coercive action till completion of investigation provided she cooperates, with investigation allowed to continue; writ petition finally disposed of accordingly.

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPCRL No. 792 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
			1. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned AGA for the State. 3. By the instant writ petition, petitioners are praying for the following relief: “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR Annexure No. 1 page 12 to 25, registered as case crime no. 121 of 2026 under Section 3, 5, 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Police Station – Kotwali Roorkee, District - Haridwar. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner case crime no. 121 of 2026 under Section 3, 5, 11 of the Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Police Station – Kotwali Roorkee, District – Haridwar till the pendency of present petition.” 4. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 2 is ready to surrender before the court concerned, however, protection may be given to petitioner no. 1 – Rizwana. 5. State Counsel has no objection to it. 6. In such view of the matter, the instant petition is dismissed as not pressed qua petitioner no. 2 as he is ready to surrender before the court concerned. 7. Since at this juncture, impugned FIR cannot be quashed, therefore, so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, investigation may go on, however, no coercive action shall be taken against her till the investigation is completed provided she cooperates with the investigation. 8. With the observations and directions, as above, the writ petition qua the petitioner no. 2 is finally disposed of.
			(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 04.05.2026 SKS

Rizwana v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rizwana v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Bhuwan Chandra Vs Uttarakhand Transport Corporation

Amit Juyal Vs Mission Director National Health and Family Welfare Mission

Naveen Kumar Dhyani Vs Mission Director National Health and Family Welfare Mission

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Saniya Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sarfraj Ahmed Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Kashipur Election Officer