Allahabad High Court
Anil Agarwal @ Anshu Agarwal vs State Of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy.,Home & ... on 14 July, 2010
Bench: Raj Mani Chauhan, Virendra Kumar Dixit
Court No. - 20 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 6494 of 2010 Petitioner :- Anil Agarwal @ Anshu Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy.,Home & Others Petitioner Counsel :- M/S Unison Legal(A.Tewari Respondent Counsel :- G.A.,K.S.Rastogi Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar DIXIT,J.
Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Siddharth Sinha, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no.4, Sri Lakhan Goyal is taken on record. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the complainant is also taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the F.I.R.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 07.07.2010 registered as Case Crime No.257-A of 2010, under section 308 I.P.C., Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow and also for direction to the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance to the said impugned F.I.R.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant along with others had badly beaten the labourers of the petitioner who had already lodged the First Information Report against the complainant and others. The complainant just by way of counterblast has lodged the impugned First Information Report with false allegations. The accused- petitioner, therefore deserves protection during the investigation.
Learned A.G.A. assisted by Sri Siddharth Sinha, Advocate for the complainant opposed the petition and argued that two accused-persons and others had badly beaten two persons from the side of the complainant one of them has sustained fracture on skull bone and his condition is serious. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve protection during the investigation.
We have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. which disclose the commission of cognizable offence and as such it cannot be quashed.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. and also the fact that there are cross F.I.Rs in this case, therefore it is provided that in case the petitioner appears before the court concerned and moves any bail application, the same will be disposed of by the courts below expeditiously.
Order Date :- 14.7.2010 PAL